Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Wikipedia

2008-06-15T11:23:11Z

Everwill: /* Jimbo Wales */

= Content Disputes =
==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The need for factual evidence (not based solely upon polls, which are essentially a measurement of mass opinion) abounds in this article as well as the rest of this site. Without evidence supporting your claims, you create straw-man arguments that are easy to refute. They will maintain no sway in those who are not yet persuaded, for these people will look past your argument into your logical fallacies. Please just keep this in mind during creation of future articles. {{unsigned|TheFlaxenFox}} December 2007.

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

So I was reading this article and saw this: "Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability." His case about Wikipedia threatening free speech is based on the fact that it is free for anyone to voice their opinions and not controlled by the government. Sorry guys, i know it must be hard trying to uphold the conservative practices with what little backing you can find, but really - please try to make some sense with what you put on here. I'm only looking out for you guys, and you're not doing anything with this site but declaring your close-mindedness and denouncing every single detail that you don't completely agree with. Thanks, and have a nice day. Oh, and by the by, your warning stating "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" is the exact same formatting used on the Wikipedia, the very same site you are trying to protest. -- [[User:genghis19958|genghis19958]] 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a minor spelling error, "...the gravity of thier concerns". -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: Great catch. I just fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

==Arbitary blocking==

Someone named R. Fiend just blocked my Wikipedia account for 48 hours - no reason given. ;-)

Typical hijinks at the asylum run by the inmates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are you running an attack site, Ed? The proposed decision says, "a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#A_wait] Maybe it's guilt by association. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, someone saw my message on my user talk page there and unblocked me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Paul L. Boyer otherwise known as R. fiend can pretty much do and say anything he likes at Wikipedia. His claim to fame is that he once appeared on Jeopardy! where he was said to be working as a bartender. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 13:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

::Dwain, got any diffs? A bartender on Jeopardy! is enough to be WP expert in the field of knowledge. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Stunning the world==
*The most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has stunned the world; and as a leading force in the open source revolution has shaken assumptions regarding knowledge and scholarship to their very roots. Its reliability has been challenged because of its policy to let anyone contribute to it, but it has stood up remarkably to tests and comparisons to conventional sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page]

::You sound like a wikipedia infomerical. It has hardly "stunned the world". The concept was a good one, but the implementation was where problems kicked in. And wikipedia only has comparable information to encyclopedias in non-controversial areas, and even then it has a tendency to sound a bit disjointed. Look at the article on the moon for instance. Although no new information has been found for a while, there have been 50 edits since the start of the month. There's a constant battle of pushing and pulling inherent in wikipedia and its political correctness. One person dared to show distances in miles as well as kilometers -- of course he was reverted.

::Most of us here would praise the original concept, but what it became helps to serve as an example to us of what not to do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:46, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WP isn't all bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Languages ==
At risk of sounding disingenuous, couldn't this be perceived as hypocrisy: "There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles." - It's phrased as a criticism, but it should be noted that, for example, Conservapedia has only English language articles. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Arcane British royalty ==
In the opening paragraph, Wikipedia's entry on Henry Liddell is cited as an example of arcane British royalty. He wasn't royalty. Either another example should be found or the text changed to something like "obscure British nobility". [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

: Thank you. Change made as requested. Factual truth comes first, though I can't resist observing that this correction seems rather arcane on this side of the pond!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, yes, I can understand that. Indeed, royalty is simply the "uppermost" tier of nobility. But British royalty is actually very small with only about a dozen or so members, i.e. the family of the monarch, and so none of them, at least in the UK, are particularly obscure even though they might be the US.
::As I'm on a roll, I might also point out that Henry Liddell isn't notable for his nobility - I'm not even sure whether he was nobility or simply Esquire. Rather he is notable for those things in the opening paragraph of his entry on Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be a better example. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::: Well, I went and looked at the entry again, and some of those "notable" things of Henry Liddell do not seem terribly significant in 2007. I do think the copying by [[Wikipedia]] of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, with its very British view of that outdated world, plays a role here. Also, not to be overly contentious, but the point is not whether the entry is notable, but that the entry is filled with junk about arcane nobility. Still, I agree, there might be an even better example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, the criticism was not of the article's subject itself, but of some of the trivia in it. But I do find it annoying when insular Americans judge the merit of something on how important it is to Americans. And although the connection to Alice in Wonderland is merely trivia, it's ''interesting'' trivia! (Perhaps it shouldn't be in the introduction, though.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Philip, I think I can safely speak for all non-Brits, or at least all non-English speaking people, in describing [[Wikipedia]]'s trivia about British nobility as "arcane"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I'm not sure what relevance "non-English speaking people" have for an ''English'' language encyclopaedia, but apart from that, perhaps you are correct. I actually decided that I better look up "arcane" to be sure I understood the word, and it wasn't quite what I thought it was. ''Arcane: mysterious; secret; obscure.'' Yes, I guess for many people the British nobility is a bit mysterious and obscure. But then I could say much the same about calculus, quantum theory, and definitely the American system for electing presidents which I've ''never'' been able to comprehend! But isn't an encyclopaedia intended to demystify the mysterious and clarify the obscure? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

= Content Suggestions =
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==

I'm going to tread lightly here. I know there is loads of animosity toward Wikipedia here, but wouldn't it be fair to mention SOME of the good aspects of the site? To me, it seems like most of the WP articles disputed here are only on highly-politicized topics. Personally, I have found that many of the basic science articles (fundamental physics and chemistry, especially most of the mathematics branches) as well as many of the History articles are quite good and seem to line up exactly with my university texts.

I think it is fair to mention the virtue of WP's non-politicized articles, as they greatly outnumber the hot-button subjects. I will not start editing the page until I can collaborate with somebody though. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are of course lots of positive aspects of Wikipedia especially, as you say, in articles that are not contentious along socio-political lines. And even those articles that are contentious tend to be good - there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't exert as much editorial pressure as liberals, which of course they do.

:But two reasons why Conservapedia will not publish pro-Wikipedia content. Firstly, it's in direct competition with it. Not commercially but for what it sees as the hearts and minds of the new generation. Secondly, Conservapedia does not pretend to be NPOV. It promotes a dichotomy between left and right. So, while Wikipedia has good things to say about Conservapedia and even bad things to say about itself, Conservapedia doesn't want to dilute its anti-Wikipedia stance at all.

:While I agree with you that Conservapedia would be taken more seriously by mainstream conservatives if it could allow itself to be a little more balanced, I feel this is unlikely in this currently hyped atmosphere of them and us. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:: In the lead sentence of its entry about [[Conservapedia]], [[Wikipedia]] lies about our "stated purpose" in an attempt to smear us. This has been pointed out in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but the [[liberals]] at [[Wikipedia]] won't correct it. I doubt you will either.

:: No, there's little of value in a cite as devoted to lies, gossip and pornography as [[Wikipedia]] is. What's next, you're going to insist that the National Enquirer has much redeeming value? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::"Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism." (from Wikipedia's intro on Conservapedia).

:::Where's the lie in the above, Aschlafy? Or is it a simple error? Or a difference in opinion. I don't know - genuinely interested. And why don't you change it?

:::Personally I don't find Wikipedia particularly dedicated to lies, gossip and pornography. Sure, it's there if you look for it, but I don't. Wikipedia has many redeeming features - it would churlish to deny it. I still maintain they should be covered in this article to lend a bit of balance. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.. actually I think I see what you're getting at. I think sentence means that the stated purpose is to create "an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint" and that it is "supportive of ... Young Earth creationism". But yes, that form of words might suggest that the latter was also a stated aim. I could attempt to change it... [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Done. Let me know what you think. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Better, but the term "supportive" (used twice) is still wrong, non-encyclopedic, and an attempt to smear Conservapedia. Also, note how [[liberals]] have flagged the entry and are likely to change or revert any improvements you make. One [[liberal]] has already modified your edit! Welcome to how [[Wikipedia]] operates in removing improvements and ensuring continuing [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::...the "liberal" edit did nothing more than moving a source to its proper place. The source reads:
{{cquote|Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective. [...] Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems creationism gets top marks in every one of its 5,100 entries.}}
:::::So it seems like "supportive" is not a too unfitting word in this context. The "problem" is not in Wikipedia, it's in the source. And it's in the source because Conservapedia does give exactly that impression. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]? And that makes something factual????

:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand. Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry? No, I doubt you would. Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position. Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Aschfly, can I just get this straight, please? Are you denying that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative viewpoint? Or a Youth Earth Creationist viewpoint? Or both? Or what?

:::::::The text as it now stands states that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative view and many of the articles are supportive of a YEC view. Is this not correct? If it isn't, what form of words would be correct? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not going to waste time by repeating this again. If you would like to remove the lies from Wikipedia's entry about Conservative, then that would be welcome, though I'd expect Wikipedia editors to reinsert the lies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::If you tell me what the lies are and why, I will try to. Or give a link that describes them. Or tell me what your preferred set of words would be. I don't see why this is proving to be so difficult. I've obviously missed previous discussions on this. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I think the original point has been diluted with all of this unnecessary talk regarding the definition Wikipedia currently provides for Conservapedia. The only comment I'll make is that Wikipedia's article seems quite balanced, and I've been contributing heavily to it lately to make sure this site isn't unnecessarily mocked. I am against bias. Now, the real question/issue is whether there are merits to be found in using Wikipedia, a site which hosts nearly 2 million articles. Granted some maybe viewed by others to be "anti-intellectual" in nature - if you don't want to read about music groups, television shows, movies, video games etc..etc..that's fine. But take a gander at Wikipedia's repository for science related articles. This includes cell biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine (pathology) and countless other categories. They are extremely well written, neutral, sourced, and informative. And I'm not talking about Evolution. I echo the original commentors observations - it also applies to historical, geographical, and mathematical articles. I think this article itself would benefit from a fleshing out. You don't have to PRETEND NPOV, but you can still strive for it. Right now it's just a list of negativity that represents a minutia of problems with Wikipedia articles in the past. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to help. And before anyone calls me on liberal bias, I beg you to look past those classifications and see that I am a Wikipedian and a Conservapedian. Thanks guys. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I've read (or tried to plow through) many of Wikipedia's life sciences articles. They are poorly written. They are no good for beginners, i.e., people who don't know much about biology for example. And they are biased against the idea that human beings may have more to them than just their physical bodies.

:::You can't say much about people without considering the [[spiritual body]] [[St. Paul]] spoke of, and you can't describe human life without [[free will]] and [[life after death]]. Moreover, how can you talk about the children without describing their [[God|Father]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has many positive features. I wouldn't have devoted 3 years of spare time to it, if I thought it was utterly useless. For one thing, it pioneered the concept of a free online encyclopedia which is collaboratively written.

Oh, and they're moving their headquarters to San Francisco, where they'll be surrounded by more liberals than ever before. ;-) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Either that or they're moving to the Ninth Federal Judicial District in hopes of more favorable rulings from all the lawsuits they have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

:Content on Wikipedia is controlled by and released under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's edits on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can divide this article into general information of interest - such as the license and the ease of editing - and the strenuous criticism of its leftist bias and general unreliability. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.

::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

==Two pages?==
This is just an idea, but maybe all the sections of the Wikipedia page talking about it's scandals and stuff could be moved to a separate page (like [[Controversy in wikipedia]] or something like that, and this page could just summarize wikipedia, Kinda like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia this], except include some of the bad aspects as well). [[User:1984|1984]] 17:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

==Major Faux Pas from using Wikipedia==
Due to a mis-quote on Wikipedia a group of university professors caused Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a lecture at La Sapienza University in Rome in January 2008. This garnered international attention and was a major embarassment to the university.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

http://www.zenit.org/article-21701?l=english

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020707.html

= Other =
==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==
Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5] {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==For the record==
For the record, I was one of the "other Wikipedia Review" editors investigating the Essjay scandal. Here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20408] I raised the possibility Essjay could be more than one person. Here, Brandt confronts Essjay, and asks, "Are you more than one person?" [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/usermess.png] it should also noted, the forum was frequented by high level WP Administrators who were active participants in these discussions, and new all relevent facts. Therefore, the discoveries made on January 19, that Essjay had lied & put the credibility of WP at stake in a most compromising way was known to high level WP Admins who regulalry report back on activities on the mailing lists before ''Jimbo'' appointed Essjay to ArbCom, with the full knowledge the ''The New Yorker'' was about to print a retraction on the lies and disinformation.

How this got fouled up in WP's internal bureacracy, is only a cause for speculation. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Waste ==

Isn't this article just bashing Wikipedia, not a very nice (or informative) article

: It's factual and balanced about [[Wikipedia]], which is more than can be said about [[Wikipedia]]'s smears in its entry about [[Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::This article is far from balanced (and I believe that's the general consensus among your users) - there isn't a single informative statement that doesn't have to do directly with some kind of verbose scandal or minutia error that existed in a handful of articles out of millions. No offense Aschlafly, but the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia is an example of what this one should be -resourceful, neutral, and informative in ALL aspects. Just my two cents. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think this whole website is very factual or helpful in anyway, it is just to promote a very conserative agenda.
[[User:EtAlt292|EtAlt292]] 14:48, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::hot button issues maybe, but not the majority of the articles. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

: EtAlt292, how about stating your political beliefs (e.g., [[liberal]]) before pretending to be unbiased in your comments???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I kinda take exception to that statement - Just because someone disagrees with certain issues doesn't make them inherently biased, or in this case "liberal". I self-identify as a liberal (mostly because if I was forced to pick a label, that would be it), although I normally eschew such classifications, but I don't consider myself biased at all. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Let's look at the conclusion of this article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html]covering the recent Overstock.com/Bagley/Attack sites incident:
{{QuoteBox|If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. 

"'''When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today’s age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article''' that comes up," Byrne says. "So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse." 

Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. 

"Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community," he says. "But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. '''What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans''' to some degree." 

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles." }}

:::Northing has been added from Bagley's case to this article, yet the conclusions are virtually identical to what is already presented here.

:::For the record, see Byrne's posting to Daniel Brandt here, "''your'' gangsters turn out to be connected to ''our'' gangsters."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3761&view=findpost&p=14936] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== More sources for section on Barbara Bauer ==

Should have better sourcing. We should add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Barbara%20Bauer] where the quoted comment actually occurred as well as possibly including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_31#Barbara_Bauer] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer]. The Bauer dispute seems that it might be more complicated. I'm struggling to understand what happened so we can add more to it. It looks like some liberal science fiction writers tried to hijack a lot of Wikipedia and got away with it until Bauer filed suit. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 23:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Quoting from Wikipedia==

I am aware that the Commandments forbid quoting from Wikipedia, unless it is done to illustrate a liberal point of view, but what would be the problem if the quoted material was something which Conservapedians found unobjectionable? I have just joined, and have not made any edits yet. But I'm a musician by profession, and so one of the first areas of this encyclopedia I looked at was the one on music. Compare the page here on, say, Music Theory with the equivalent page on Wikipedia. The difference in quality is immense; the Conservapedia page is innacurate and confusing, to say the least. I can't think of any possible liberal bias which could lurk within a topic like that, and any that did exist (such as British spellings or BCE dates) could be easily edited. So what is the rule regarding this subject?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:Hi and welcome. My take on the issue is that we just don't lift text from wikipedia. As I understand the way WP works, there is no original research or creative writing there, so their information must show where it is from, and so there should be no problem with us being able to use the same or similar sources to produce our own articles without having to actually take text from WP. With regard to the article you mention, it may well be that we have no one (unlike yourself that is) who is a professional musician or at least an informed amateur to produce - yet - a quality technical article. Of course, you are welcome to bring your knowledge to the crease and I'm sure everyone here, and our readers, would be very grateful for your efforts there :) My musical knowledge is limited to "I know what I like" lol [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:In furtherance of Fox's comments, Eoinc, if you wrote the entry on Wikipedia, then of course you can copy your own work. But I compared our [[music theory]] to Wikipedia's and personally I prefer our concise, encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia has not one, not two, but three big disclaimers in its entry, the first of which says it was taken almost entirely from one source! Moreover, the Wikipedia entry is far to long and tedious to be educational. I'm a teacher and know the value of conciseness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:We may be confusing two issues here. As mentioned above, you are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia, unless it is entirely your own work. But you are also not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, which I think may be what Eoinc is referring to. Wikipedia has a similar rule, i.e. that you cannot use other on-line encyclopedias, blogs, etc. as sources. It has to be what they refer to as a "reliable source". Similarly, we don't find Wikipedia necessarily reliable, so you can't use it as a source. But as Fox said, you may be able to use and cite the same sources that Wikipedia uses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia minimizes Bozell's criticism. ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Brent_Bozell_III&diff=prev&oldid=157974132]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikilink cleanup ==

There are some inappropriately-linked dates in the [[Wikipedia#The_scandal_breaks]] section. Could someone clean this up or unlock it so that I can do it? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist ==

What relevance does saying Wales is an atheist have? The website is not atheist and covers all ranges of topics, so I don't understand why this has any place in the first sentence of the article. [[User:Luano|Luano]] 19:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
==Jimbo Wales==
Do you think were helping the conservative cause by calling "Jimmy Wales" "Jimbo Wales".

: I thought he preferred that nickname. We don't care but we often use the nicknames preferred by the person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==Sexual obsession==
Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference? One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].

I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-06-15T11:04:57Z

Everwill: /* Sources */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-06-15T11:02:35Z

Everwill: /* Sources */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts:

[[http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]]

It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax]] refutes many warming myths. [[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-06-15T11:00:47Z

Everwill: /* Communism? */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts:

[[http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]]

It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a
SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back
in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism
type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally
slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to
keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal,
environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental
consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for
CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many
cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been
allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax]] refutes many warming myths. [[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-12T15:45:23Z

Everwill: /* Issues surrounding the film */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:52:32Z

Everwill: /* Academic Freedom */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin | Darwin]], a believer in God, was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that Evolution is false. In fact, the film acknowledges that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who rightly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for origins of the life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

The main thrust of the film is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. The theme of the film is that no question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many learning institutions to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design Theory.

The open-mind begs the question: if we don't cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia.

Just as [[Einstien]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:51:47Z

Everwill: /* Liberal reception */

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:46:24Z

Everwill: /* Darwinism */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin | Darwin]], a believer in God, was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that Evolution is false. In fact, the film acknowledges that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who rightly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for origins of the life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

The main theme of the film is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. The theme of the film is that no question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many learning institutions to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design Theory.

The open-mind begs the question: if we don't cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia.

Just as [[Einstien]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:39:51Z

Everwill: /* Darwinism */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin | Darwin]], a believer in God, was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that Evolution is false. In fact, the film acknowledges that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who rightly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for origins of the life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. Thus, setting up the main thrust of the film.

That question being: if we don't cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia. With regards to Darwinism, and in a free society, why can't some questions be asked?

Just as [[Einstien]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:36:44Z

Everwill: /* Darwinism */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the extreme complexity of the [[cell]], the complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms are staggeringly intricate. With even our limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this machine randomly designed itself defies credulity. This is a material fact of which Darwin was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that Evolution is false. In fact, the film acknowledges that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who rightly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for origins of the life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. Thus, setting up the main thrust of the film.

That question being: if we don't cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia. With regards to Darwinism, and in a free society, why can't some questions be asked?

Just as [[Einstien]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T13:34:07Z

Everwill: /* Darwinism */ We need an expert to work on the "cell" article ASAP! Here's my crack at this paragraph.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the extreme complexity of the [[cell]], the complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms are staggeringly intricate. With even our limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this machine randomly designed itself defies credulity. This is a material fact of which Darwin was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that Evolution is false. In fact, the film acknowledges that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who rightly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for origins of the life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. Thus, setting up the main thrust of the film.

That question being: if we don't cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia. With regards to Darwinism, and in a free society, why can't some questions be asked?

Just as [[Einstien]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life while

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T12:56:01Z

Everwill: /* Summary */ hopefully these clarifications are improvements ... just trying to be very accurate

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

The film documents how some opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, when no one had any idea of the structure of the cell. In the 21st century, when we know how complex it is, ID proponents "would just like to be able to ask the questions". (Stein on O'Reilly)

Stein asks why modern scientists can't have the same freedom to believe in God as [[Einstein]], [[Newton]], and [[Darwin]] himself.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T12:41:38Z

Everwill: /* Summary */ clarifying as before

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-27T12:39:35Z

Everwill: clarifying: the film does not purport that evolution does not happen. Rather it postulates that Evolution does not adequate explain origins of life and species.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-24T20:16:32Z

Everwill: /* Movie Reviews */ Bloated wording distorts Fox News without adding anything to article. Trimmed up.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] in [[United States of America|America]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of that country's [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
<div style="float:right; width:13em; border:green solid 1px; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.5em">North Americans can locate a theater showing the film by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].</div>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

Opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. If ID is true, naturalistic evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID.

The scientific establishment has erected a wall between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for atheism and materialism. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, when no one had any idea of the structure of the cell. In the 21st century, when we know how complex it is, ID proponents "would just like to be able to ask the questions". (Stein on O'Reilly)

Stein asks why modern scientists can't have the same freedom to believe in God as [[Einstein]], [[Newton]], and [[Darwin]] himself.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it. ''[[Time magazine]]'', in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the [[conservative]] ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

[[Liberal]] Roger Friedman criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'':
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== Criticism ==

The film quotes Charles Darwin's ''The Descent of Man'' in an attempt to illustrate how he supported what later became [[eugenics]], a justification given by the dictators and intellectuals who perpetrated the [[Holocaust]]. Here is the quote in the movie, which is accurate, although omitting parts:

{{QuoteBox|With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.}}

Darwin's fuller quote, at least the first section, is arguably more tedious but introduces the same objectionable belief that it is somehow unwise to help the weak and allow them to have children ("breed"). He follows this with observations as to why we do help the less fortunate, and mentions his reservations against the idea of not helping the less fortunate, calling it ("evil"):

{{QuoteBox|With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; ''and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.'' No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. 
 
''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil''.<ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181</ref>[Italics indicates text not in the film's quote.]}}

Ben Stein's speech was done specifically for the film, an non-unusual practice for films.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer</ref>

The movie completely omits [[theistic evolution]], which is not taught in [[public school]] and is used primarily by Christian [[evolutionists]] to reconcile their faith with what they perceive scientific truth. Mark Mathis, an associate editor of Expelled, when asked why alleged religious evolutionists such as Catholic Kenneth R. Miller were not in the film, replied that this form of fallacious [[liberal logic]] (see point 6) "would have confused the film unnecessarily."<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T14:48:23Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T11:35:53Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia chimes in==
The movie's article on Wikipedia is highly biased (no surprise) and "semi-protected", which in practice means that ordinary people can't edit it. Sort of proves the film's point, I'd say.

: Right. That will be the next new point 1 in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. All too predictable that Wikipedia would impose its bias with respect to this movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T11:34:28Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia chimes in==
The movie's article on Wikipedia is highly biased (no surprise) and "semi-protected", which in practice means that ordinary people can't edit it. Sort of proves the film's point, I'd say.

: Right. That will be the next new point 1 in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. All too predictable that Wikipedia would impose its bias with respect to this movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T11:06:29Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T11:05:51Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when many controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T11:05:30Z

Everwill: /* If you watched the movie... */

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when many controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this move. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-04-20T01:00:24Z

Everwill: /* The International Society for Science and Religion */

{{protect|DanH}}

== 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)
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.

:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== 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)

: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Needed Entry ==
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

==A new year of encyclopedia building==

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Cdesign proponentsists==

I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Implications==

It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==The International Society for Science and Religion==
<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>
Just thought I should mention this.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled==
Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Expelled] [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-04-03T16:48:23Z

Everwill: /* YEC is not all of Creationism */

{{protect|Conservative}}

*[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

Geology

2008-04-03T16:39:23Z

Everwill: /* History of Geology */

{{Etymology|From the [[Greek]] γη- (ge-, "the [[earth]]") and λογος (logos, "word", "[[reason]]")}}
'''Geology''' is the [[science]] and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, [[history]] and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences.

==History of Geology==
The term geology was first used in the late 18th Century. Although geology was not mentioned in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] before 1800, by 1809 geology had a lengthy entry. During the earliest days of geological study, mainstream scientific geology was divided into three camps: Plutonists, Neptunists and Catastrophists. Of course, the vast majority of all geologists then (as now) were theists, but much of early geology was based upon the biblical history. At that time, the Plutonists believed God created the Earth, but volcanoes and fire had shaped the modern world. At the same time, the Neptunists believed that the ocean, perhaps even the Great Flood, was the primary factor in geology. Catastrophists on the other hand believed that the Earth had been created by God in one great catastrophe. Thus, Catastrophists concluded that everything which we now see was much the same as the world was at [[Creation]]. At that time, it was generally presumed by geologists and theologians that the Earth was around six thousand years old. Many Young Earth Creationists still agree with this interpretation.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>

In 1775, James Hutton presented a thesis, ''Theory of the Earth'', to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Hutton, who is considered by some to be the father of modern geology, attempted to explain the rationale for his conclusion that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed. Coupling observation with the [[scientific method]] he believed that the Earth must be very old indeed. In every direction he looked Hutton saw evidence of eroded mountains, dry land which had once been sea, and sediment and rocks at the bottom of the ocean. After ten years of study he published his findings in his book ''Theory of the Earth'' to document his claims of a much older Earth. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12861</ref><ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14179</ref>

While met with initial controversy, over time much of Hutton's conclusions were borne out by observations collected from around the world during the rise of the British Empire and in the [[Royal Geographic Society]]. Based upon mounting evidence in 1830, Sir [[Charles Lyell]] published the first of what would eventually grow into twelve editions of ''Principles of Geology''. Charles Lyell reported geological processes occurring every day. He documented geological process which have occurred during the recorded history of man. By inference he concluded that geological processes must have occurred before the recorded history of man.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049503/Sir-Charles-Lyell-Baronet</ref><ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/lyell_charles.html</ref> In time, most geologists came to agree with his theory of [[uniformitarianism]].

Modern geology has learned much about the Earth and geologic processes. Volcanism and deformation bring rocks to the surface of the Earth from depths as great as 50 to 100 km. Scientists can make inferences about some of the properties of the Earth at these depths by studying these rocks. But far more information has been provided through the use of seismic waves created by natural earthquakes, and by controlled explosions designed to learn more about the composition of the Earth, including underground nuclear explosions. This data has revealed that the Earth is composed of three main layers, the crust, the mantle and the core. The crust, or outermost layer, varies in thickness from about 5 km under oceans to about 40 km under continents. The mantle consists of an outermost zone of about 100 km thick named the lithosphere. The layer below is a partially fluid solid named the athenosphere, which ends at a depth of about 200 km. As seismic waves penetrate deeper into the mantle they indicate that between 400 km and about 2900 km atoms are packed closer and closer together by extreme pressures, creating a crystalline structure. The Earth's core is 2900 km from the surface. Seismic waves slow down in this region until a depth of 5100 km, indicating that the core consists of a liquid layer surrounding a solid core at the center.<ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Extensive exploration and mapping of the seafloor after World War II led to the discovery of a deep rift running down the center of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In the early 1960s Harry Hess of Princeton University and Robert Dietz of the University of California suggested that the seafloor separates along the rifts in mid-0ceanic ridges and that new seafloor forms by upwelling of hot mantle materials in these cracks, followed by lateral spreading. By 1967 separate lithospheric plates had been identified, which explained phenomena such as high levels of volcanic and earthquake activity that take place between the plates. By the end of the 1960s the theory of plate tectonics proved to be a unifying concept that pulled together diverse theories and explained a the large body of observations in the field. <ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Twelve or so plates slide over a partially molten lithosphere, and the continents, embedded in some of the plates, are carried by them. Where plates collide, mountains such as the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountains are formed. In some places, called subduction zones one plate sinks beneath another plate and returns to the molten regions of the athenosphere. Along mid-oceanic ridges magma emerges to expand the plate and create new sea floor.

==How Old is the Earth==
No one knows how old the Earth is. However, modern geologists armed with increasingly improving capacity for observation and established ideas culled from generations of geological research can calculate an apparent age for the Earth. <ref>http://abcworld.net/Earth.html</ref> For example, satellites are capable of detecting the movement of land even if that movement is measured in inches per year. <ref>http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/tectonics.htm</ref> Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and [[mathematics]], one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] an apparent age of the Earth. Of course with any human endeavor there is a margin for error. The consensus is that the Earth appears to be approximately 4.6 billion years.

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationists]] state the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> This is primarily based upon their interpretation of Biblical text in Genesis coupled with assumptions akin to those made by most scientists prior to 19th Century. Young Earth creationists point to unexplained anomalies and other questions in standard geology as proof of creation geology. This remains a tiny minority position because of two foundational problems. Firstly, most scientists do not accept the Bible as a scientific resource. Secondly, anomalies in a theory and absence of certain knowledge are not accepted as scientific proof in any science.

==Geology Today==
Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.

Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Geology

2008-04-03T16:36:59Z

Everwill: /* Point of order (and Comment part II) */

This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:
::*Old-Earth Geology
::*Young Earth Geology
[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]
:Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.

::I would defend any man's right to believe the Earth is any age which might fit his philosophy, but this is like something which would seem familiar to [[Galileo]]. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you be specific? Which points don't have references, or which references don't you consider credible? And which are broken? As far as I know, [[Galileo]] (see the blue link) believed that the Earth was created around 4,000 B.C. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Reference #16 has a list of "facts". The facts are all dead links. Reference 17 relies upon the opinions of someone with any established credibility. I didn't go any further because the entire Young Earth Creation idea relies upon the belief that geologists worldwide are part of a vast conspiracy to push an atheistic agenda. I'm quite sure I can find a long list of things that Galileo thought, or would have thought, that have since been proven quite wrong, but to do so would be a waste of time. You will dismiss anything which does not support your interpretation of the Bible.

::::In my experience, mainstream geology finds natural resources. Young Earth Creation geology, on the other hand, finds arguments to support a religious agenda. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the theology behind Young Earth Creation, but it's a waste of time to put the two ideas in side by side. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Reference 16 is an FAQ list, and the links in that list work for me at the moment, but that site has had some technical difficulties lately, which may be the problem you encountered.
:::::I'm guessing that reference 17 is for the list of links also, rather than the text at the start of the page. If so, there is not a single "someone" to question the credibility of.
:::::That YEC believes that geologists are part of a conspiracy is merely your interpretation and specifically denied by those YECs.
:::::I will ''not'' "dismiss" anything that does not support the Bible. I will point out why it is wrong.
:::::Mainstream geology finds natural resources, ''and also claims to know what has happened in the past'', from an anti-Biblical ideology. Creationist geologists also find natural resources, but dispute the claims about the past. Allowing one side to make ideological statements about the past but dismissing others doing so as ideologically driven is not fair.
:::::Incidentally, I'm not a fan of FAQ lists for references (although there may be some cases in which they are appropriate).
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Locked? ==

This article has been locked for a long time now. Any chance that it could be opened up again for further improvement? [[User:Kenservative|Kenservative]] 14:55, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

==Article in need of serious help ... ==

This is one of the articles that caused me to walk away from Conservapedia for a long time. There are several assertions in this article which are based upon a gross misunderstanding of geology and a presumption that geology undermines a particular theology. They have stood unchallenged for quite a long time. Until such time as this article and others like it are brought up to standard, Conservapedia will suffer a credibility problem, just as Wikipedia suffers a bias problem. As a conservative, I defend the rights of those who believe in a Bible-based geology and there should be a framework and forum where they can explain their theories and views. That said, this article is not the place to argue whether the Earth was created in 7 days and when the universe was created. Is there anyone else who sees the strong need for a better article here? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
: Your concern is expressed in rather vague terms (perhaps deliberately), so I can't be certain what you are getting at, but certain geological ideas ''do'' "undermine" the biblical account. However, relatively little of this article is to do with when the universe was created, and what is there seems to be fairly balanced. If this article can be written so that it doesn't mention the old-Earth viewpoint, then there's no need to mention the young-Earth viewpoint either, but I doubt that's really feasible. Perhaps you'd like to make some more specific proposals? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly, it's difficult to engage in any discussion with you about this topic because the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position or the "9/11 Truth" position. In all these cases, it is true that some people believe these theories. But, it is also true that the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous.

::As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things. I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.

::I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand. There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result. It's just a huge time sink.

::That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born. But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory. In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)

::All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here. For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.

::The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose. You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.

::As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?

::Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::"''...the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position ...''": This is nonsense. The "young Earth position" has been held by many millions of people for thousands of years, including many very intelligent people (Ussher, Newton, Kepler, for example) and estimated tens of thousands of scientists today. The [[flat Earth]] "position" is largely an invention by evolutionists to discredit creationists (see that article).
::: "''These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you''": I don't ignore facts, and I don't reject them without good reason. And how would you know that they are unknown to me?
::: "''And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument. I'm well aware that this may sound insulting...''": Yep. Because I use good arguments, not ignorance. You're using rhetoric and insults.
::: "''The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs.''": I've studied this issue for over 30 years. I'm not arguing from ignorance, and I use scientific arguments as well as religious/philosophical ones.
::: "''To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe.''": Galileo's issues were not so much with the science, but internal politics and rubbing people the wrong way. Many actually already accepted his ideas.
::: "''There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old.''": There's another insult. You're talking about many highly-qualified scientists there, and simply insulting them rather than refuting their arguments.
::: "''That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist.''": Then why do they claim to?
::: "''For all I know it was created the day before I was born.''": I take it that you believe the Bible, but if so you don't believe that what He said is true!
::: "''But if it was created ... 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.''": Oh? What evidence? Near enough to no scientists managed to see this evidence until around the time that various agnostics, atheists, etc. starting proposing a much older Earth around 200 or so years ago. It couldn't have been very obvious.
::: "''Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.''": There's nothing hard to explain about coal. And the YEC view has as much right to be in the article as the atheistic view.
::: "''You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone.''": Why not? Other than people's biases getting in the way, of course?
::: "''...why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains?''": Perhaps because, unlike YEC, there's no scientific or other good evidence for them?
::: "''Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology?''": For a layman, I believe that I have a pretty good grasp. And your post has been nothing but rhetoric, with a touch of insult. For someone who claims to have a good grasp of the science and geology, you sure didn't use much of it.
::: Here's something to think about. I gather that you reject evolution? (If not, ignore the rest of this.) Pretty-well everything you said about YEC (e.g. "the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous") is also said by evolutionists against those that believe in ID or creation. So what makes ''your'' supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position any more credible that my supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

For the record: I do not "reject" evolution. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. On the other hand, I do not think that the "Origin of Species" fully explains the creation and permutations of life on this planet. Further, I do not think that evolution, survival of the fittest, has anything to do with creation. Creation is wholly apart from evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.

That said, you have kindly and eagerly provided an example of exactly the type of ridiculous internet debate which I refuse to engage. Quotes vs. counter-quotes round and round in circles, it's all pointless.

Clearly, you're quite passionate in your beliefs and if you have (as you claim) studied the field and still haven't changed your mind after thirty years, there is nothing I can type which will change your mind. I understand and allow for the fact that there is a possibility that the minority position might be the correct position. But I also think it foolish for the minority to lead the majority by demanding "equality". Also, it's not my job to change your mind or educate you. (Thank God!)

By the same token, I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.

Therefore, it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other matters.

That understood, it makes most sense to separate these two variant schools of thought, because quite frankly there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.

To the editors and admins of the site, I plead again. Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''I do not "reject" evolution''": Okay, my mistake.
: "''Evolution is a fact.''": If you mean the whole evolutionary family tree, not it's not a fact, it's a (poor) hypothesis.
: "''It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.''": So it makes perfect sense to you that God would do that, then tell His creation that He did it all in six days?
: "''...there is nothing I can type which will change your mind.''": In other words, I'm close-minded.
: "''...I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.''": In other words, ''you're'' close minded. Well, I guess that makes us even. Except that you attempt to take the intellectual high-ground that ''you are right''! And I disagree that it's all provable.
: "''...there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.''": Then modern geology ought to make room.
: "''Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority?''": In other words, because I'm supposedly in a minority, I don't understand geology? Are you really saying that because I don't ''agree with'' something, therefore I don't ''understand'' it?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Surely I don't have to point out to you how illogical that is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

I was asked to comment about this "laughing-stock" article, but frankly I don't see it. Granted, I only gave it a brows and it's entirely possible that I missed these gems, but everything seems ok to me. Certainly, Everwill believes that YEC is untrue, and I am inclined to believe (if only by default and not by education), however, there's nothing wrong with the YEC viewpoint -- in fact, it's encouraged at this encyclopedia. Additionally, it's a pet peeve of mine when in articles it is said "Y is X" instead of "Z believe that Y is X" (I don't know why I did that in reverse alphabetical order, but I digress) however in this article, all of the YEC statements that I saw were properly attributed.

Perhaps, Everwill, you could bring up some more specific claims? (If they are in the section above I apologize; that looked more like a discussion of the correctness of YEC Geology, not a discussion of this article in and of itself). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing [[young earth]] and [[old earth]] scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the [[age of the earth]] is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, with all due respect, the scientific reasons for believing the Earth appears thousand of years old were largely undermined more than 200 years ago. Granted the Earth might be older or younger than it appears, but there is little doubt or controversy about how old it appears. As for an example of a retarded sentence:

::''Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth.''

Belief has nothing to do with calculations. Calculations are calculations and nothing more. We don't know how old the Earth is. In that regard you may believe whatsoever you choose. But we do know the results of the calculations and in that regard there is little argument.

The problem of "appearance of age" is best explained by "Adam's navel". Did Adam have a belly-button? Afterall, he was never in the womb and thus never had a placenta. Did he have DNA? Afterall, he did not have parents and thus inherited no genes. I would say, of course Adam had a belly button and genes. By the same token, geology stands apart from creationism.

The ''Theory of Earth'' was published in 1775 and the observations and science of generations of geologists have relentlessly advanced the field since that time. As a result one is free to believe that the earth was created six thousand years ago (or six days ago for that matter), but no informed person can reasonably argue against the evidence of a much older Earth. Geology makes no claims regarding creationism and I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to believe that God would create a system that makes sense.

It must be understood that at this stage in the game, the burden of proof is not on the field of geology. The burden of proof is on the Young Earth theorists. Geologists around the globe have found pieces of a puzzle that seem to fit nicely together telling the story of this planet. At the risk of making Conservapedia seem foolish, this article might include a link to Young Earth theory, but there is absolutely no room for any Young Earth poppycock in an article about Geology.

When I said the article "needs work", that's because the article in general needs work. I would like to insert more than a few paragraphs into this article and I would like to edit it for further clarity. My problem is I don't want to invest the work while fighting an argument with a well-meaning soul who is quite uninformed about Earth Sciences. To be specific, I have no reason to hold any animosity or grudge against the goodly gentleman Rayment, but I am quite certain from his rhetoric that nothing positive can come from my interaction with him regarding geology.

Because of what I've seen in the study of Intelligent Design and in the case of the IPCC, I'm willing to accept the remote possibility that Young Earth science has some basis in reality. That said, the burden of proof is on Young Earth Theory and not on standard geology because geology is so widely accepted and has practical uses every single day. What I've seen of YE "science" is a reliance on out-of-date facts couple with ignorance of other facts wedged into a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no tolerance for this argument because the "9/11 Truthers" and others sapped my energy long ago.

The 9/11 "Truthers" taught me that arguing against ignorance is futile because as soon as you explain one mystery another will arise. So with apologies to Mr. Rayment, I can only say that he may be a good fellow and well-intentioned, but he is arguing from a passionate philosophical point but a position of utter ignorance of geology.

I hate to admit it, but this article is sort of an epiphany for me and I must thank Mr. Rayment for that. Although I know that evolution is a fact, I also believe in Intelligent Design Theory. I could never understand why some folks would want to keep ID out of schools. I now fully understand why some liberal parents feel threatened by us conservatives and religious types.

Previously, it was obvious to me the atheistic agenda in teaching Evolution, but I was blind to the dangers of the reverse. Though he will never accept this from me or another, and though this is not intended as an insult, it is clear to me that Mr. Rayment has only a vague and faulty understanding about the science of geology. I respect his right to teach his children whatever he wants. But, I absolutely do not want him teaching my kids anything about Earth Science. Thanks to Mr. Rayment, I now fully understand the issue for our schools: "What does one do with passionately held beliefs which are founded in ignorance?"

I have no easy solution. In this particular case, I think segregation is the best option. This is because, I'm certain that Mr. Rayment is equally certain of my ignorance or of my involvement the geological conspiracy against the Bible.

So, after rambling a while, I'll get to the point. What I'm asking the "powers that be" to enforce segregation here. In an article about Geology, I think that the best Young Earthers can hope for is a link to an article about their theory. I personally refuse to write this article as if there was any controversy between "young earth theory" and "old earth theory". I know too much about the field of study to pretend as if these were two different but equal lines of thought.

I'm a conservative. Therefore, I don't want informed people to think that conservatives are ignorant. I firmly believe that if Conservapedia allows "young earth theory" (disproved long ago) to mingle with modern geology, then we make ourselves look uneducated and ignorant. And I don't say that flippantly or with anything other than Conservapedia's best interests at heart! But for the fact that some people interpret Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, there is little difference between taking young earth theory and flat-earth theory seriously.

I would like to improve and edit this article but I don't have energy for an edit war. If I have to write this much on the talk page before a single edit is made, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:One of the good things about discussion pages is that is reveals the assumptions of article contributors. To collaborate, we need to identify our [[common ground]] as well as our areas of disagreement. When we agree, it's easy to help each other write an article, but when we disagree it is often hard to "agree to disagree"; see [[Conservapedia:Collaborative writing]].

:Right at the top of your comments, you referred to the problem of [[Adam's navel]]:
:*Did Adam have a belly-button? After all, he was never in the [[womb]] and thus never had a [[placenta]]

:Adam's navel (like [[Schroedinger's cat]]) is one of those things which are brought up to make us think. So let's consider this. Were [[Adam and Eve]] created as adults? Or as brand new people with no experience or memory but with adult bodies? Could they have been created as teenagers, or toddlers, or even as infants?

:If Adam and Eve were created as anything other than mature adults, then whose job was it to take care of them? If they were infants or children, who got their food? Who kept them from dangers like drowning or falling off of cliffs? Did angels do this, or what?

:I'm not looking for specific answers here and now, so don't worry ;-)

:I'm only trying to illustrate the point that [[Geology]] relates to [[Theology]]. The issue of young earth vs. old earth is a valid and important one. I'm not sure this article should have full coverage of the dispute, but we could take a page out of Wikipedia's book and do what they '''say''' they do, even if they are not consistent when push comes to shove.

:Let's describe this issue where it best belongs, where readers will be happiest to see it. I suggest something like [[Creation Science]], because in 1988 when I first became interested in the [[Origins debate]] that was the term (or [[Scientific Creationism]]).

:Now, I'm hoping that nothing in what I wrote above shows any "prejudice regarding the issue". I want to be completely open-minded and even-handed in my writing, because I love Philip as a brother but I also respect you, dear sir. And I'm thinking about our readers. For every 1 person who comments, probably 10 or 50 people '''read''' these discussions and ponder them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:: "''Calculations are calculations and nothing more''": Yes, but dates are calculations built on assumptions. See [[radiometric dating]]. Otherwise much of Everwill's post, as before, was rhetoric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Every waking (and sleeping) moment of life is based on assumptions. If we spend our lives questioning every single assumption then we are paralyzed with analysis. Unless you yourself dedicate your life to being a geologist then you have no basis or authority to question the assumptions and conclusions of those who have in good faith dedicated themselves to the study of geology. (Geologists go to church too.)

:::What about the issue of a flat-earth? Are we going to explain the basis for flat-earth theory? Can we not post a graphic depicting the simple truth that things on the bottom of a sphere fall off the sphere? Can we not point to the obvious fact that the earth pretty much appears flat?

:::What about Earth-centric astronomy? Can we explain the rationale and the thinking behind why some well-educated well-informed people believed and believe that the Earth, or more specifically Jerusalem, is the center of the universe?

:::Can we also punch into the article about the [[Moon]] the theory that the Moon is made from green cheese?

:::In other words where do you draw the line. At what point do you realize that the explanations refuting these theories are wastes of time and are only there for the benefit of a tiny tiny minority of people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand why the majority has reached another conclusion? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, much of life is based on assumptions. That's no reason to disregard those questioning those assumptions and just argue that assumptions need not be questioned. And neither is it intellectually honest to argue that something that is based on disputed ''assumptions'' is ''proved''.
:::: If the geologists' assumptions are worldview-based, then I have as much right to question them as anyone else. Besides, there are ''geologists'' who question those assumptions also. Geologists are trained in ''geology'', not ''worldviews''.
:::: The shape of the Earth and the composition of the moon can be ''observed''; the age of the Earth ''cannot''.
:::: You draw the line at teaching the ''evidence'', both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth ''do'' understand ''why'' others reached another conclusion, because ''they themselves'' used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often ''by the evidence''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not denigrating and hope it hasn't been perceived as such. I'm going out of my way to remain as respectful as possible. But think of it this way: if you're anything like me (and every other human on the planet), sometimes you're just flat-out wrong.

This time: you're just plain wrong.

Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. No one alive knows the answer to that question.{{personal remark ellipsis|In a brazen display of arrogance,}} you claim to know the answer to that question. Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated. At the same time, a Biblical scholar would be wise to say that a popular interpretation of the Bible suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact. Others may interpret the Bible differently.

I'm quite sure that in the mountains of geological evidence that has been compiled you can point to certain factors that support your opinion. Just as the 9/11 Truthers can point to "evidence" to support their beliefs, I'm certain you have evidence to support your belief. I'm equally certain you can find mysteries in the science of geology. That's why we continue to study geology, because we don't understand the entire planet yet. Neither of those two facts change the reality that since the 18th Century, Young Earth geology has been shattered as a theory time and time again by countless geologists.

The question remains: are we going to take seriously the flat-earth theory, the green cheese theory and the other "scientific" theories? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

: When you refer to creationists, which includes qualified geologists and other scientists, as "people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand", you're denigrating.
: "''...sometimes you're just flat-out wrong. This time: you're just plain wrong.''": Or you are.
: "''Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. ... Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated''": Can you find me ''one'' quote from a leading geologist that makes that distinction? I can't recall ''ever'' seeing a quote about the age of the Earth that qualifies it as merely "appearance". Here's some I just Googled:
:* "The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years"[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Talk.Origins]
:* "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth Wikipedia]
:* "...scientists have been able to ... calculate an age for the Earth..."[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS]
:* "How old is the Earth? 4.6 billion years (4,600,000,000 years)"[http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm]
: Not even a hint that they are talking about appearance rather than actual age. No, you're making a distinction that geologists don't make.
: "''It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact.''": Not at all. Words have meanings, else we could not communicate. Not all written text is clear, but the Bible is quite clear on this, and this is the way that essentially everyone understood it until atheistic geological assumptions took over. Even today, though, the experts of Hebrew and Old Testament say that this is the way that the writer(s) of Genesis ''meant'' it to be understood. Would you accept the argument, "geologists say that the Earth is/appears to be 4.6 billion years old, but there's different ways of interpreting that, and it can be interpreted to mean that it's only 6,000 years old? You'd think I was being stupid for arguing that, yet that is essentially what you are arguing about "interpreting" the Bible.
: Opposition to mainstream geological ideas does not comprise a handful of "mysteries" and a few facts. It comprises a different but equally valid interpretation of the evidence, based on a different worldview.
: I've already dismissed the flat-Earth and green cheese red herrings. They are ''not'' scientific theories, but anti-creationist propaganda and a fairy tale.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Points of Agreement==
There are few points of agreement between the modern science of Geology and Young Earth science. But in the interest of advancing the article I'm going to labor through what I see as a very short list of agreement.

* You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.
* I have a right to teach my children whatever I want.
* Cataclysmic geology was a popularly held theory until 1775.
* A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.
* The vast majority of working geologists scoff at "young earth theory" and "cataclysmic geology".
* Working geologists find mineral resources for mining companies, oil companies and others. Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.
* We are in agreement that unpopular scientific opinion is not necessarily the wrong opinion. For example, it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction.
* You believe that geology has something to do with theology.
* Theoretical geologists in the field perform research every day about the history of the Earth's crust. The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.

''That last bullet point alone should be enough to stop a well-reasoned person in their tracks. The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.''

My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated. As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not. I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty. Furthermore, I cannot stand silent, while under the banner of conservatism someone else champions a position founded in ignorance.

Maybe the conclusion or lesson is that online references such as this and Wikipedia can't work. How does one resolve the fact that there will always be vocal passionate minorities who hold beliefs that contradict accept theory?

All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: There's actually ''lots'' of points of agreement. The ''only'' areas of disagreement relate to origins: how old they are and how they formed: Both things that are ''not observed'', but ''inferred''.
: "''You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.''": Up to a point, but if I have my children in a government school, the government decides, not me. The only right I have is to not put my children in a government school.
: "''A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.''": You downplay it a bit too much, especially the "invisible" bit.
: "''Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.''": First, some working geologists are YECs, so that statement is incorrect. Second, creation geology has advanced beyond the 18th century, so that was a loaded statement.
: "''...it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction''": Even ignoring the creationist component of that community, I don't think they've agreed ''yet''!
: "''You believe that geology has something to do with theology.''": No, not really. I believe that claims about the ''history'' of the rocks are claims about ''history'', which conflict with the Bible's claims about ''history''. So it's all about which ''history'' is correct, not that geology has something to do with theology, although the history does have implications in other areas.
: "''The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.''": Neither science nor history are popularity contests.
: "''The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.''": Again, see the popularity contest point. Further, how rare do you think it is?
: "''My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated.''": Sorry, but if you believe in intelligent design, then you already do look that, in the eyes of most scientists. I'm sure that if anti-ID people made the sorts of statements to you about ID that you are making hear about YEC (as they do), you wouldn't accept it. So why should I accept it from you? Second, you should be more interested in the truth than in how you look.
: "''As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not.''": So which is your biggest concern? Not looking naive, foolish, or politically-motivated, or the truth?
: "''I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty''": Again, creation geology is not stuck in the 18th century: that's not a valid argument. Second, I totally disagree that it has long since been proven faulty.
: "''All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock.''": Yeah? How about pointing out what's (supposedly) wrong instead of making meaningless hand-waving statements like that?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Point of order (and Comment part II) ==

Point of order: Everwill, while I've already stated (if not here then elsewhere) that I agree with the standard viewpoint, however saying that the majority agrees with something therefore it is true is an [[ad populum]] (proof by numbers) logical fallacy. This is ''fallacious'' reasoning, and does not prove your argument.

Comment part II: I still am not sure I understand the distinction between what you (or Philip) ''believe'' and what should be allowed in this article. In other words, why try to convince Philip he is wrong, when it has no bearing on what will be put in the article (this is, afterall, an article talk page)? YEC views are put into articles on Conservapedia, and it sounds to me like you are arguing that it is wrong and should not be allowed into the article. Like I said before, unless I missed something in my cursory overview, this is a well-written article. You might think that YEC is wrong, but that's ok! All YEC views are properly attributed to those who believe them, and they aren't being stated as fact. If the article said "the earth is 6,000 years old", I could rightly see why you would object, but the article says "YECs believe that the earth is 6,000 years old", which is true and verifiable.

So in conclusion, if the article needs work, fix it! If the field of YEC needs work, this isn't really a great forum to try and change that. Perhaps a debate page? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with and understand your assertion [[ad populum]]. Here's my problem: I have a finite amount of life, so I can't afford to spend too much of my precious life energy arguing points with a few stubborn and obstinate people that are well understood by a good many people. I also trust in the intelligence in good well of my fellow human beings.

:Because of this trust, and my understanding of human nature, I don't feel any need to argue a position held by .01% of the experts in a field. I don't have time to study every rock ever cataloged. I trust that others have done so already. Geology is not a small field. Basic geology is taught at every community college in America.

:I can agree to an admission that no one knows when the Earth was made. But I cannot agree that cataclysmic geology is anything more than a fringe position on par with flat-earth society, UFO conspiracy, Moon Conspiracy, alchemy or phrenology or countless other beliefs passionately held by a tiny minority.

:I support the minority's right to think what they want. As an oddity or in the wildly improbably chance that the fringe is correct, I support the expression of the fringe idea in a form that others can access. But I can't see room for the fringe position in a serious discussion.

:But another of your points is well-taken. Maybe I should at last stop wasting time talking here and begin to make my edits. Perhaps there is no argument after all? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Geology

2008-04-03T16:34:08Z

Everwill: /* How Old is the Earth */

{{Etymology|From the [[Greek]] γη- (ge-, "the [[earth]]") and λογος (logos, "word", "[[reason]]")}}
'''Geology''' is the [[science]] and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, [[history]] and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences.

==History of Geology==
The term geology was first used in the late 18th Century. Although geology was not mentioned in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] before 1800, by 1809 geology had a lengthy entry. During the earliest days of geological study, mainstream scientific geology was divided into three camps: Plutonists, Neptunists and Catastrophists. Of course, the vast majority of all geologists then (as now) were theists, but much of early geology was based upon the biblical history. At that time, the Plutonists believed God created the Earth, but volcanoes and fire had shaped the modern world. At the same time, the Neptunists believed that the ocean, perhaps even the Great Flood, was the primary factor in geology. Catastrophists on the other hand believed that the Earth had been created by God in one great catastrophe. Thus, Catastrophists concluded that everything which we now see was much the same as the world was at [[Creation]]. At that time, it was generally presumed by geologists and theologians that the Earth was around six thousand years old. Many Young Earth Creationists still agree with this interpretation.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>

In 1775, James Hutton presented a thesis, ''Theory of the Earth'', to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Hutton, who is considered by some to be the father of modern geology, attempted to explain the rationale for his conclusion that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed. Coupling observation with the [[scientific method]] he believe that the Earth must be very old indeed. In every direction he looked Hutton saw evidence of eroded mountains, dry land which had once been sea, and sediment and rocks at the bottom of the ocean. After ten years of study he published his findings in his book ''Theory of the Earth'' to document his claims of a much older Earth. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12861</ref><ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14179</ref>

While met with initial controversy, over time much of Hutton's conclusions were borne out by observations collected from around the world during the rise of the British Empire and in the [[Royal Geographic Society]]. Based upon mounting evidence in 1830, Sir [[Charles Lyell]] published the first of what would eventually grow into twelve editions of ''Principles of Geology''. Charles Lyell reported geological processes occurring every day. He documented geological process which have occurred during the recorded history of man. By inference he concluded that geological processes must have occurred before the recorded history of man.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049503/Sir-Charles-Lyell-Baronet</ref><ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/lyell_charles.html</ref> In time, most geologists came to agree with his theory of [[uniformitarianism]].

Modern geology has learned much about the Earth and geologic processes. Volcanism and deformation bring rocks to the surface of the Earth from depths as great as 50 to 100 km. Scientists can make inferences about some of the properties of the Earth at these depths by studying these rocks. But far more information has been provided through the use of seismic waves created by natural earthquakes, and by controlled explosions designed to learn more about the composition of the Earth, including underground nuclear explosions. This data has revealed that the Earth is composed of three main layers, the crust, the mantle and the core. The crust, or outermost layer, varies in thickness from about 5 km under oceans to about 40 km under continents. The mantle consists of an outermost zone of about 100 km thick named the lithosphere. The layer below is a partially fluid solid named the athenosphere, which ends at a depth of about 200 km. As seismic waves penetrate deeper into the mantle they indicate that between 400 km and about 2900 km atoms are packed closer and closer together by extreme pressures, creating a crystalline structure. The Earth's core is 2900 km from the surface. Seismic waves slow down in this region until a depth of 5100 km, indicating that the core consists of a liquid layer surrounding a solid core at the center.<ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Extensive exploration and mapping of the seafloor after World War II led to the discovery of a deep rift running down the center of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In the early 1960s Harry Hess of Princeton University and Robert Dietz of the University of California suggested that the seafloor separates along the rifts in mid-0ceanic ridges and that new seafloor forms by upwelling of hot mantle materials in these cracks, followed by lateral spreading. By 1967 separate lithospheric plates had been identified, which explained phenomena such as high levels of volcanic and earthquake activity that take place between the plates. By the end of the 1960s the theory of plate tectonics proved to be a unifying concept that pulled together diverse theories and explained a the large body of observations in the field. <ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Twelve or so plates slide over a partially molten lithosphere, and the continents, embedded in some of the plates, are carried by them. Where plates collide, mountains such as the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountains are formed. In some places, called subduction zones one plate sinks beneath another plate and returns to the molten regions of the athenosphere. Along mid-oceanic ridges magma emerges to expand the plate and create new sea floor.

==How Old is the Earth==
No one knows how old the Earth is. However, modern geologists armed with increasingly improving capacity for observation and established ideas culled from generations of geological research can calculate an apparent age for the Earth. <ref>http://abcworld.net/Earth.html</ref> For example, satellites are capable of detecting the movement of land even if that movement is measured in inches per year. <ref>http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/tectonics.htm</ref> Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and [[mathematics]], one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] an apparent age of the Earth. Of course with any human endeavor there is a margin for error. The consensus is that the Earth appears to be approximately 4.6 billion years.

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationists]] state the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> This is primarily based upon their interpretation of Biblical text in Genesis coupled with assumptions akin to those made by most scientists prior to 19th Century. Young Earth creationists point to unexplained anomalies and other questions in standard geology as proof of creation geology. This remains a tiny minority position because of two foundational problems. Firstly, most scientists do not accept the Bible as a scientific resource. Secondly, anomalies in a theory and absence of certain knowledge are not accepted as scientific proof in any science.

==Geology Today==
Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.

Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Geology

2008-04-03T15:49:43Z

Everwill: /* Point of order (and Comment part II) */

Talk:Geology

2008-04-03T11:34:49Z

Everwill: /* Points of Agreement */

This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:
::*Old-Earth Geology
::*Young Earth Geology
[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]
:Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.

::I would defend any man's right to believe the Earth is any age which might fit his philosophy, but this is like something which would seem familiar to [[Galileo]]. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you be specific? Which points don't have references, or which references don't you consider credible? And which are broken? As far as I know, [[Galileo]] (see the blue link) believed that the Earth was created around 4,000 B.C. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Reference #16 has a list of "facts". The facts are all dead links. Reference 17 relies upon the opinions of someone with any established credibility. I didn't go any further because the entire Young Earth Creation idea relies upon the belief that geologists worldwide are part of a vast conspiracy to push an atheistic agenda. I'm quite sure I can find a long list of things that Galileo thought, or would have thought, that have since been proven quite wrong, but to do so would be a waste of time. You will dismiss anything which does not support your interpretation of the Bible.

::::In my experience, mainstream geology finds natural resources. Young Earth Creation geology, on the other hand, finds arguments to support a religious agenda. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the theology behind Young Earth Creation, but it's a waste of time to put the two ideas in side by side. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Reference 16 is an FAQ list, and the links in that list work for me at the moment, but that site has had some technical difficulties lately, which may be the problem you encountered.
:::::I'm guessing that reference 17 is for the list of links also, rather than the text at the start of the page. If so, there is not a single "someone" to question the credibility of.
:::::That YEC believes that geologists are part of a conspiracy is merely your interpretation and specifically denied by those YECs.
:::::I will ''not'' "dismiss" anything that does not support the Bible. I will point out why it is wrong.
:::::Mainstream geology finds natural resources, ''and also claims to know what has happened in the past'', from an anti-Biblical ideology. Creationist geologists also find natural resources, but dispute the claims about the past. Allowing one side to make ideological statements about the past but dismissing others doing so as ideologically driven is not fair.
:::::Incidentally, I'm not a fan of FAQ lists for references (although there may be some cases in which they are appropriate).
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Locked? ==

This article has been locked for a long time now. Any chance that it could be opened up again for further improvement? [[User:Kenservative|Kenservative]] 14:55, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

==Article in need of serious help ... ==

This is one of the articles that caused me to walk away from Conservapedia for a long time. There are several assertions in this article which are based upon a gross misunderstanding of geology and a presumption that geology undermines a particular theology. They have stood unchallenged for quite a long time. Until such time as this article and others like it are brought up to standard, Conservapedia will suffer a credibility problem, just as Wikipedia suffers a bias problem. As a conservative, I defend the rights of those who believe in a Bible-based geology and there should be a framework and forum where they can explain their theories and views. That said, this article is not the place to argue whether the Earth was created in 7 days and when the universe was created. Is there anyone else who sees the strong need for a better article here? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
: Your concern is expressed in rather vague terms (perhaps deliberately), so I can't be certain what you are getting at, but certain geological ideas ''do'' "undermine" the biblical account. However, relatively little of this article is to do with when the universe was created, and what is there seems to be fairly balanced. If this article can be written so that it doesn't mention the old-Earth viewpoint, then there's no need to mention the young-Earth viewpoint either, but I doubt that's really feasible. Perhaps you'd like to make some more specific proposals? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly, it's difficult to engage in any discussion with you about this topic because the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position or the "9/11 Truth" position. In all these cases, it is true that some people believe these theories. But, it is also true that the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous.

::As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things. I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.

::I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand. There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result. It's just a huge time sink.

::That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born. But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory. In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)

::All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here. For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.

::The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose. You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.

::As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?

::Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::"''...the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position ...''": This is nonsense. The "young Earth position" has been held by many millions of people for thousands of years, including many very intelligent people (Ussher, Newton, Kepler, for example) and estimated tens of thousands of scientists today. The [[flat Earth]] "position" is largely an invention by evolutionists to discredit creationists (see that article).
::: "''These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you''": I don't ignore facts, and I don't reject them without good reason. And how would you know that they are unknown to me?
::: "''And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument. I'm well aware that this may sound insulting...''": Yep. Because I use good arguments, not ignorance. You're using rhetoric and insults.
::: "''The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs.''": I've studied this issue for over 30 years. I'm not arguing from ignorance, and I use scientific arguments as well as religious/philosophical ones.
::: "''To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe.''": Galileo's issues were not so much with the science, but internal politics and rubbing people the wrong way. Many actually already accepted his ideas.
::: "''There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old.''": There's another insult. You're talking about many highly-qualified scientists there, and simply insulting them rather than refuting their arguments.
::: "''That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist.''": Then why do they claim to?
::: "''For all I know it was created the day before I was born.''": I take it that you believe the Bible, but if so you don't believe that what He said is true!
::: "''But if it was created ... 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.''": Oh? What evidence? Near enough to no scientists managed to see this evidence until around the time that various agnostics, atheists, etc. starting proposing a much older Earth around 200 or so years ago. It couldn't have been very obvious.
::: "''Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.''": There's nothing hard to explain about coal. And the YEC view has as much right to be in the article as the atheistic view.
::: "''You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone.''": Why not? Other than people's biases getting in the way, of course?
::: "''...why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains?''": Perhaps because, unlike YEC, there's no scientific or other good evidence for them?
::: "''Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology?''": For a layman, I believe that I have a pretty good grasp. And your post has been nothing but rhetoric, with a touch of insult. For someone who claims to have a good grasp of the science and geology, you sure didn't use much of it.
::: Here's something to think about. I gather that you reject evolution? (If not, ignore the rest of this.) Pretty-well everything you said about YEC (e.g. "the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous") is also said by evolutionists against those that believe in ID or creation. So what makes ''your'' supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position any more credible that my supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

For the record: I do not "reject" evolution. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. On the other hand, I do not think that the "Origin of Species" fully explains the creation and permutations of life on this planet. Further, I do not think that evolution, survival of the fittest, has anything to do with creation. Creation is wholly apart from evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.

That said, you have kindly and eagerly provided an example of exactly the type of ridiculous internet debate which I refuse to engage. Quotes vs. counter-quotes round and round in circles, it's all pointless.

Clearly, you're quite passionate in your beliefs and if you have (as you claim) studied the field and still haven't changed your mind after thirty years, there is nothing I can type which will change your mind. I understand and allow for the fact that there is a possibility that the minority position might be the correct position. But I also think it foolish for the minority to lead the majority by demanding "equality". Also, it's not my job to change your mind or educate you. (Thank God!)

By the same token, I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.

Therefore, it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other matters.

That understood, it makes most sense to separate these two variant schools of thought, because quite frankly there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.

To the editors and admins of the site, I plead again. Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''I do not "reject" evolution''": Okay, my mistake.
: "''Evolution is a fact.''": If you mean the whole evolutionary family tree, not it's not a fact, it's a (poor) hypothesis.
: "''It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.''": So it makes perfect sense to you that God would do that, then tell His creation that He did it all in six days?
: "''...there is nothing I can type which will change your mind.''": In other words, I'm close-minded.
: "''...I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.''": In other words, ''you're'' close minded. Well, I guess that makes us even. Except that you attempt to take the intellectual high-ground that ''you are right''! And I disagree that it's all provable.
: "''...there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.''": Then modern geology ought to make room.
: "''Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority?''": In other words, because I'm supposedly in a minority, I don't understand geology? Are you really saying that because I don't ''agree with'' something, therefore I don't ''understand'' it?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Surely I don't have to point out to you how illogical that is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

I was asked to comment about this "laughing-stock" article, but frankly I don't see it. Granted, I only gave it a brows and it's entirely possible that I missed these gems, but everything seems ok to me. Certainly, Everwill believes that YEC is untrue, and I am inclined to believe (if only by default and not by education), however, there's nothing wrong with the YEC viewpoint -- in fact, it's encouraged at this encyclopedia. Additionally, it's a pet peeve of mine when in articles it is said "Y is X" instead of "Z believe that Y is X" (I don't know why I did that in reverse alphabetical order, but I digress) however in this article, all of the YEC statements that I saw were properly attributed.

Perhaps, Everwill, you could bring up some more specific claims? (If they are in the section above I apologize; that looked more like a discussion of the correctness of YEC Geology, not a discussion of this article in and of itself). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing [[young earth]] and [[old earth]] scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the [[age of the earth]] is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, with all due respect, the scientific reasons for believing the Earth appears thousand of years old were largely undermined more than 200 years ago. Granted the Earth might be older or younger than it appears, but there is little doubt or controversy about how old it appears. As for an example of a retarded sentence:

::''Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth.''

Belief has nothing to do with calculations. Calculations are calculations and nothing more. We don't know how old the Earth is. In that regard you may believe whatsoever you choose. But we do know the results of the calculations and in that regard there is little argument.

The problem of "appearance of age" is best explained by "Adam's navel". Did Adam have a belly-button? Afterall, he was never in the womb and thus never had a placenta. Did he have DNA? Afterall, he did not have parents and thus inherited no genes. I would say, of course Adam had a belly button and genes. By the same token, geology stands apart from creationism.

The ''Theory of Earth'' was published in 1775 and the observations and science of generations of geologists have relentlessly advanced the field since that time. As a result one is free to believe that the earth was created six thousand years ago (or six days ago for that matter), but no informed person can reasonably argue against the evidence of a much older Earth. Geology makes no claims regarding creationism and I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to believe that God would create a system that makes sense.

It must be understood that at this stage in the game, the burden of proof is not on the field of geology. The burden of proof is on the Young Earth theorists. Geologists around the globe have found pieces of a puzzle that seem to fit nicely together telling the story of this planet. At the risk of making Conservapedia seem foolish, this article might include a link to Young Earth theory, but there is absolutely no room for any Young Earth poppycock in an article about Geology.

When I said the article "needs work", that's because the article in general needs work. I would like to insert more than a few paragraphs into this article and I would like to edit it for further clarity. My problem is I don't want to invest the work while fighting an argument with a well-meaning soul who is quite uninformed about Earth Sciences. To be specific, I have no reason to hold any animosity or grudge against the goodly gentleman Rayment, but I am quite certain from his rhetoric that nothing positive can come from my interaction with him regarding geology.

Because of what I've seen in the study of Intelligent Design and in the case of the IPCC, I'm willing to accept the remote possibility that Young Earth science has some basis in reality. That said, the burden of proof is on Young Earth Theory and not on standard geology because geology is so widely accepted and has practical uses every single day. What I've seen of YE "science" is a reliance on out-of-date facts couple with ignorance of other facts wedged into a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no tolerance for this argument because the "9/11 Truthers" and others sapped my energy long ago.

The 9/11 "Truthers" taught me that arguing against ignorance is futile because as soon as you explain one mystery another will arise. So with apologies to Mr. Rayment, I can only say that he may be a good fellow and well-intentioned, but he is arguing from a passionate philosophical point but a position of utter ignorance of geology.

I hate to admit it, but this article is sort of an epiphany for me and I must thank Mr. Rayment for that. Although I know that evolution is a fact, I also believe in Intelligent Design Theory. I could never understand why some folks would want to keep ID out of schools. I now fully understand why some liberal parents feel threatened by us conservatives and religious types.

Previously, it was obvious to me the atheistic agenda in teaching Evolution, but I was blind to the dangers of the reverse. Though he will never accept this from me or another, and though this is not intended as an insult, it is clear to me that Mr. Rayment has only a vague and faulty understanding about the science of geology. I respect his right to teach his children whatever he wants. But, I absolutely do not want him teaching my kids anything about Earth Science. Thanks to Mr. Rayment, I now fully understand the issue for our schools: "What does one do with passionately held beliefs which are founded in ignorance?"

I have no easy solution. In this particular case, I think segregation is the best option. This is because, I'm certain that Mr. Rayment is equally certain of my ignorance or of my involvement the geological conspiracy against the Bible.

So, after rambling a while, I'll get to the point. What I'm asking the "powers that be" to enforce segregation here. In an article about Geology, I think that the best Young Earthers can hope for is a link to an article about their theory. I personally refuse to write this article as if there was any controversy between "young earth theory" and "old earth theory". I know too much about the field of study to pretend as if these were two different but equal lines of thought.

I'm a conservative. Therefore, I don't want informed people to think that conservatives are ignorant. I firmly believe that if Conservapedia allows "young earth theory" (disproved long ago) to mingle with modern geology, then we make ourselves look uneducated and ignorant. And I don't say that flippantly or with anything other than Conservapedia's best interests at heart! But for the fact that some people interpret Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, there is little difference between taking young earth theory and flat-earth theory seriously.

I would like to improve and edit this article but I don't have energy for an edit war. If I have to write this much on the talk page before a single edit is made, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:One of the good things about discussion pages is that is reveals the assumptions of article contributors. To collaborate, we need to identify our [[common ground]] as well as our areas of disagreement. When we agree, it's easy to help each other write an article, but when we disagree it is often hard to "agree to disagree"; see [[Conservapedia:Collaborative writing]].

:Right at the top of your comments, you referred to the problem of [[Adam's navel]]:
:*Did Adam have a belly-button? After all, he was never in the [[womb]] and thus never had a [[placenta]]

:Adam's navel (like [[Schroedinger's cat]]) is one of those things which are brought up to make us think. So let's consider this. Were [[Adam and Eve]] created as adults? Or as brand new people with no experience or memory but with adult bodies? Could they have been created as teenagers, or toddlers, or even as infants?

:If Adam and Eve were created as anything other than mature adults, then whose job was it to take care of them? If they were infants or children, who got their food? Who kept them from dangers like drowning or falling off of cliffs? Did angels do this, or what?

:I'm not looking for specific answers here and now, so don't worry ;-)

:I'm only trying to illustrate the point that [[Geology]] relates to [[Theology]]. The issue of young earth vs. old earth is a valid and important one. I'm not sure this article should have full coverage of the dispute, but we could take a page out of Wikipedia's book and do what they '''say''' they do, even if they are not consistent when push comes to shove.

:Let's describe this issue where it best belongs, where readers will be happiest to see it. I suggest something like [[Creation Science]], because in 1988 when I first became interested in the [[Origins debate]] that was the term (or [[Scientific Creationism]]).

:Now, I'm hoping that nothing in what I wrote above shows any "prejudice regarding the issue". I want to be completely open-minded and even-handed in my writing, because I love Philip as a brother but I also respect you, dear sir. And I'm thinking about our readers. For every 1 person who comments, probably 10 or 50 people '''read''' these discussions and ponder them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:: "''Calculations are calculations and nothing more''": Yes, but dates are calculations built on assumptions. See [[radiometric dating]]. Otherwise much of Everwill's post, as before, was rhetoric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Every waking (and sleeping) moment of life is based on assumptions. If we spend our lives questioning every single assumption then we are paralyzed with analysis. Unless you yourself dedicate your life to being a geologist then you have no basis or authority to question the assumptions and conclusions of those who have in good faith dedicated themselves to the study of geology. (Geologists go to church too.)

:::What about the issue of a flat-earth? Are we going to explain the basis for flat-earth theory? Can we not post a graphic depicting the simple truth that things on the bottom of a sphere fall off the sphere? Can we not point to the obvious fact that the earth pretty much appears flat?

:::What about Earth-centric astronomy? Can we explain the rationale and the thinking behind why some well-educated well-informed people believed and believe that the Earth, or more specifically Jerusalem, is the center of the universe?

:::Can we also punch into the article about the [[Moon]] the theory that the Moon is made from green cheese?

:::In other words where do you draw the line. At what point do you realize that the explanations refuting these theories are wastes of time and are only there for the benefit of a tiny tiny minority of people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand why the majority has reached another conclusion? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, much of life is based on assumptions. That's no reason to disregard those questioning those assumptions and just argue that assumptions need not be questioned. And neither is it intellectually honest to argue that something that is based on disputed ''assumptions'' is ''proved''.
:::: If the geologists' assumptions are worldview-based, then I have as much right to question them as anyone else. Besides, there are ''geologists'' who question those assumptions also. Geologists are trained in ''geology'', not ''worldviews''.
:::: The shape of the Earth and the composition of the moon can be ''observed''; the age of the Earth ''cannot''.
:::: You draw the line at teaching the ''evidence'', both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth ''do'' understand ''why'' others reached another conclusion, because ''they themselves'' used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often ''by the evidence''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not denigrating and hope it hasn't been perceived as such. I'm going out of my way to remain as respectful as possible. But think of it this way: if you're anything like me (and every other human on the planet), sometimes you're just flat-out wrong.

This time: you're just plain wrong.

Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. No one alive knows the answer to that question. In a brazen display of arrogance, you claim to know the answer to that question. Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated. At the same time, a Biblical scholar would be wise to say that a popular interpretation of the Bible suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact. Others may interpret the Bible differently.

I'm quite sure that in the mountains of geological evidence that has been compiled you can point to certain factors that support your opinion. Just as the 9/11 Truthers can point to "evidence" to support their beliefs, I'm certain you have evidence to support your belief. I'm equally certain you can find mysteries in the science of geology. That's why we continue to study geology, because we don't understand the entire planet yet. Neither of those two facts change the reality that since the 18th Century, Young Earth geology has been shattered as a theory time and time again by countless geologists.

The question remains: are we going to take seriously the flat-earth theory, the green cheese theory and the other "scientific" theories? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Points of Agreement==
There are few points of agreement between the modern science of Geology and Young Earth science. But in the interest of advancing the article I'm going to labor through what I see as a very short list of agreement.

* You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.
* I have a right to teach my children whatever I want.
* Cataclysmic geology was a popularly held theory until 1775.
* A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.
* The vast majority of working geologists scoff at "young earth theory" and "cataclysmic geology".
* Working geologists find mineral resources for mining companies, oil companies and others. Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.
* We are in agreement that unpopular scientific opinion is not necessarily the wrong opinion. For example, it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction.
* You believe that geology has something to do with theology.
* Theoretical geologists in the field perform research every day about the history of the Earth's crust. The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.

''That last bullet point alone should be enough to stop a well-reasoned person in their tracks. The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.''

My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated. As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not. I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty. Furthermore, I cannot stand silent, while under the banner of conservatism someone else champions a position founded in ignorance.

Maybe the conclusion or lesson is that online references such as this and Wikipedia can't work. How does one resolve the fact that there will always be vocal passionate minorities who hold beliefs that contradict accept theory?

All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Geology

2008-04-03T11:31:23Z

Everwill: /* Comment */

This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:
::*Old-Earth Geology
::*Young Earth Geology
[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]
:Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.

::I would defend any man's right to believe the Earth is any age which might fit his philosophy, but this is like something which would seem familiar to [[Galileo]]. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Could you be specific? Which points don't have references, or which references don't you consider credible? And which are broken? As far as I know, [[Galileo]] (see the blue link) believed that the Earth was created around 4,000 B.C. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Reference #16 has a list of "facts". The facts are all dead links. Reference 17 relies upon the opinions of someone with any established credibility. I didn't go any further because the entire Young Earth Creation idea relies upon the belief that geologists worldwide are part of a vast conspiracy to push an atheistic agenda. I'm quite sure I can find a long list of things that Galileo thought, or would have thought, that have since been proven quite wrong, but to do so would be a waste of time. You will dismiss anything which does not support your interpretation of the Bible.

::::In my experience, mainstream geology finds natural resources. Young Earth Creation geology, on the other hand, finds arguments to support a religious agenda. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the theology behind Young Earth Creation, but it's a waste of time to put the two ideas in side by side. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Reference 16 is an FAQ list, and the links in that list work for me at the moment, but that site has had some technical difficulties lately, which may be the problem you encountered.
:::::I'm guessing that reference 17 is for the list of links also, rather than the text at the start of the page. If so, there is not a single "someone" to question the credibility of.
:::::That YEC believes that geologists are part of a conspiracy is merely your interpretation and specifically denied by those YECs.
:::::I will ''not'' "dismiss" anything that does not support the Bible. I will point out why it is wrong.
:::::Mainstream geology finds natural resources, ''and also claims to know what has happened in the past'', from an anti-Biblical ideology. Creationist geologists also find natural resources, but dispute the claims about the past. Allowing one side to make ideological statements about the past but dismissing others doing so as ideologically driven is not fair.
:::::Incidentally, I'm not a fan of FAQ lists for references (although there may be some cases in which they are appropriate).
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Locked? ==

This article has been locked for a long time now. Any chance that it could be opened up again for further improvement? [[User:Kenservative|Kenservative]] 14:55, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

==Article in need of serious help ... ==

This is one of the articles that caused me to walk away from Conservapedia for a long time. There are several assertions in this article which are based upon a gross misunderstanding of geology and a presumption that geology undermines a particular theology. They have stood unchallenged for quite a long time. Until such time as this article and others like it are brought up to standard, Conservapedia will suffer a credibility problem, just as Wikipedia suffers a bias problem. As a conservative, I defend the rights of those who believe in a Bible-based geology and there should be a framework and forum where they can explain their theories and views. That said, this article is not the place to argue whether the Earth was created in 7 days and when the universe was created. Is there anyone else who sees the strong need for a better article here? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
: Your concern is expressed in rather vague terms (perhaps deliberately), so I can't be certain what you are getting at, but certain geological ideas ''do'' "undermine" the biblical account. However, relatively little of this article is to do with when the universe was created, and what is there seems to be fairly balanced. If this article can be written so that it doesn't mention the old-Earth viewpoint, then there's no need to mention the young-Earth viewpoint either, but I doubt that's really feasible. Perhaps you'd like to make some more specific proposals? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly, it's difficult to engage in any discussion with you about this topic because the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position or the "9/11 Truth" position. In all these cases, it is true that some people believe these theories. But, it is also true that the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous.

::As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things. I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.

::I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand. There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result. It's just a huge time sink.

::That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born. But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory. In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)

::All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here. For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.

::The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose. You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.

::As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?

::Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::"''...the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position ...''": This is nonsense. The "young Earth position" has been held by many millions of people for thousands of years, including many very intelligent people (Ussher, Newton, Kepler, for example) and estimated tens of thousands of scientists today. The [[flat Earth]] "position" is largely an invention by evolutionists to discredit creationists (see that article).
::: "''These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you''": I don't ignore facts, and I don't reject them without good reason. And how would you know that they are unknown to me?
::: "''And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument. I'm well aware that this may sound insulting...''": Yep. Because I use good arguments, not ignorance. You're using rhetoric and insults.
::: "''The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs.''": I've studied this issue for over 30 years. I'm not arguing from ignorance, and I use scientific arguments as well as religious/philosophical ones.
::: "''To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe.''": Galileo's issues were not so much with the science, but internal politics and rubbing people the wrong way. Many actually already accepted his ideas.
::: "''There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old.''": There's another insult. You're talking about many highly-qualified scientists there, and simply insulting them rather than refuting their arguments.
::: "''That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist.''": Then why do they claim to?
::: "''For all I know it was created the day before I was born.''": I take it that you believe the Bible, but if so you don't believe that what He said is true!
::: "''But if it was created ... 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.''": Oh? What evidence? Near enough to no scientists managed to see this evidence until around the time that various agnostics, atheists, etc. starting proposing a much older Earth around 200 or so years ago. It couldn't have been very obvious.
::: "''Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.''": There's nothing hard to explain about coal. And the YEC view has as much right to be in the article as the atheistic view.
::: "''You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone.''": Why not? Other than people's biases getting in the way, of course?
::: "''...why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains?''": Perhaps because, unlike YEC, there's no scientific or other good evidence for them?
::: "''Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology?''": For a layman, I believe that I have a pretty good grasp. And your post has been nothing but rhetoric, with a touch of insult. For someone who claims to have a good grasp of the science and geology, you sure didn't use much of it.
::: Here's something to think about. I gather that you reject evolution? (If not, ignore the rest of this.) Pretty-well everything you said about YEC (e.g. "the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous") is also said by evolutionists against those that believe in ID or creation. So what makes ''your'' supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position any more credible that my supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

For the record: I do not "reject" evolution. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. On the other hand, I do not think that the "Origin of Species" fully explains the creation and permutations of life on this planet. Further, I do not think that evolution, survival of the fittest, has anything to do with creation. Creation is wholly apart from evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.

That said, you have kindly and eagerly provided an example of exactly the type of ridiculous internet debate which I refuse to engage. Quotes vs. counter-quotes round and round in circles, it's all pointless.

Clearly, you're quite passionate in your beliefs and if you have (as you claim) studied the field and still haven't changed your mind after thirty years, there is nothing I can type which will change your mind. I understand and allow for the fact that there is a possibility that the minority position might be the correct position. But I also think it foolish for the minority to lead the majority by demanding "equality". Also, it's not my job to change your mind or educate you. (Thank God!)

By the same token, I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.

Therefore, it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other matters.

That understood, it makes most sense to separate these two variant schools of thought, because quite frankly there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.

To the editors and admins of the site, I plead again. Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
: "''I do not "reject" evolution''": Okay, my mistake.
: "''Evolution is a fact.''": If you mean the whole evolutionary family tree, not it's not a fact, it's a (poor) hypothesis.
: "''It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.''": So it makes perfect sense to you that God would do that, then tell His creation that He did it all in six days?
: "''...there is nothing I can type which will change your mind.''": In other words, I'm close-minded.
: "''...I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.''": In other words, ''you're'' close minded. Well, I guess that makes us even. Except that you attempt to take the intellectual high-ground that ''you are right''! And I disagree that it's all provable.
: "''...there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.''": Then modern geology ought to make room.
: "''Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority?''": In other words, because I'm supposedly in a minority, I don't understand geology? Are you really saying that because I don't ''agree with'' something, therefore I don't ''understand'' it?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Surely I don't have to point out to you how illogical that is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

I was asked to comment about this "laughing-stock" article, but frankly I don't see it. Granted, I only gave it a brows and it's entirely possible that I missed these gems, but everything seems ok to me. Certainly, Everwill believes that YEC is untrue, and I am inclined to believe (if only by default and not by education), however, there's nothing wrong with the YEC viewpoint -- in fact, it's encouraged at this encyclopedia. Additionally, it's a pet peeve of mine when in articles it is said "Y is X" instead of "Z believe that Y is X" (I don't know why I did that in reverse alphabetical order, but I digress) however in this article, all of the YEC statements that I saw were properly attributed.

Perhaps, Everwill, you could bring up some more specific claims? (If they are in the section above I apologize; that looked more like a discussion of the correctness of YEC Geology, not a discussion of this article in and of itself). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing [[young earth]] and [[old earth]] scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the [[age of the earth]] is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, with all due respect, the scientific reasons for believing the Earth appears thousand of years old were largely undermined more than 200 years ago. Granted the Earth might be older or younger than it appears, but there is little doubt or controversy about how old it appears. As for an example of a retarded sentence:

::''Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth.''

Belief has nothing to do with calculations. Calculations are calculations and nothing more. We don't know how old the Earth is. In that regard you may believe whatsoever you choose. But we do know the results of the calculations and in that regard there is little argument.

The problem of "appearance of age" is best explained by "Adam's navel". Did Adam have a belly-button? Afterall, he was never in the womb and thus never had a placenta. Did he have DNA? Afterall, he did not have parents and thus inherited no genes. I would say, of course Adam had a belly button and genes. By the same token, geology stands apart from creationism.

The ''Theory of Earth'' was published in 1775 and the observations and science of generations of geologists have relentlessly advanced the field since that time. As a result one is free to believe that the earth was created six thousand years ago (or six days ago for that matter), but no informed person can reasonably argue against the evidence of a much older Earth. Geology makes no claims regarding creationism and I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to believe that God would create a system that makes sense.

It must be understood that at this stage in the game, the burden of proof is not on the field of geology. The burden of proof is on the Young Earth theorists. Geologists around the globe have found pieces of a puzzle that seem to fit nicely together telling the story of this planet. At the risk of making Conservapedia seem foolish, this article might include a link to Young Earth theory, but there is absolutely no room for any Young Earth poppycock in an article about Geology.

When I said the article "needs work", that's because the article in general needs work. I would like to insert more than a few paragraphs into this article and I would like to edit it for further clarity. My problem is I don't want to invest the work while fighting an argument with a well-meaning soul who is quite uninformed about Earth Sciences. To be specific, I have no reason to hold any animosity or grudge against the goodly gentleman Rayment, but I am quite certain from his rhetoric that nothing positive can come from my interaction with him regarding geology.

Because of what I've seen in the study of Intelligent Design and in the case of the IPCC, I'm willing to accept the remote possibility that Young Earth science has some basis in reality. That said, the burden of proof is on Young Earth Theory and not on standard geology because geology is so widely accepted and has practical uses every single day. What I've seen of YE "science" is a reliance on out-of-date facts couple with ignorance of other facts wedged into a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no tolerance for this argument because the "9/11 Truthers" and others sapped my energy long ago.

The 9/11 "Truthers" taught me that arguing against ignorance is futile because as soon as you explain one mystery another will arise. So with apologies to Mr. Rayment, I can only say that he may be a good fellow and well-intentioned, but he is arguing from a passionate philosophical point but a position of utter ignorance of geology.

I hate to admit it, but this article is sort of an epiphany for me and I must thank Mr. Rayment for that. Although I know that evolution is a fact, I also believe in Intelligent Design Theory. I could never understand why some folks would want to keep ID out of schools. I now fully understand why some liberal parents feel threatened by us conservatives and religious types.

Previously, it was obvious to me the atheistic agenda in teaching Evolution, but I was blind to the dangers of the reverse. Though he will never accept this from me or another, and though this is not intended as an insult, it is clear to me that Mr. Rayment has only a vague and faulty understanding about the science of geology. I respect his right to teach his children whatever he wants. But, I absolutely do not want him teaching my kids anything about Earth Science. Thanks to Mr. Rayment, I now fully understand the issue for our schools: "What does one do with passionately held beliefs which are founded in ignorance?"

I have no easy solution. In this particular case, I think segregation is the best option. This is because, I'm certain that Mr. Rayment is equally certain of my ignorance or of my involvement the geological conspiracy against the Bible.

So, after rambling a while, I'll get to the point. What I'm asking the "powers that be" to enforce segregation here. In an article about Geology, I think that the best Young Earthers can hope for is a link to an article about their theory. I personally refuse to write this article as if there was any controversy between "young earth theory" and "old earth theory". I know too much about the field of study to pretend as if these were two different but equal lines of thought.

I'm a conservative. Therefore, I don't want informed people to think that conservatives are ignorant. I firmly believe that if Conservapedia allows "young earth theory" (disproved long ago) to mingle with modern geology, then we make ourselves look uneducated and ignorant. And I don't say that flippantly or with anything other than Conservapedia's best interests at heart! But for the fact that some people interpret Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, there is little difference between taking young earth theory and flat-earth theory seriously.

I would like to improve and edit this article but I don't have energy for an edit war. If I have to write this much on the talk page before a single edit is made, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:One of the good things about discussion pages is that is reveals the assumptions of article contributors. To collaborate, we need to identify our [[common ground]] as well as our areas of disagreement. When we agree, it's easy to help each other write an article, but when we disagree it is often hard to "agree to disagree"; see [[Conservapedia:Collaborative writing]].

:Right at the top of your comments, you referred to the problem of [[Adam's navel]]:
:*Did Adam have a belly-button? After all, he was never in the [[womb]] and thus never had a [[placenta]]

:Adam's navel (like [[Schroedinger's cat]]) is one of those things which are brought up to make us think. So let's consider this. Were [[Adam and Eve]] created as adults? Or as brand new people with no experience or memory but with adult bodies? Could they have been created as teenagers, or toddlers, or even as infants?

:If Adam and Eve were created as anything other than mature adults, then whose job was it to take care of them? If they were infants or children, who got their food? Who kept them from dangers like drowning or falling off of cliffs? Did angels do this, or what?

:I'm not looking for specific answers here and now, so don't worry ;-)

:I'm only trying to illustrate the point that [[Geology]] relates to [[Theology]]. The issue of young earth vs. old earth is a valid and important one. I'm not sure this article should have full coverage of the dispute, but we could take a page out of Wikipedia's book and do what they '''say''' they do, even if they are not consistent when push comes to shove.

:Let's describe this issue where it best belongs, where readers will be happiest to see it. I suggest something like [[Creation Science]], because in 1988 when I first became interested in the [[Origins debate]] that was the term (or [[Scientific Creationism]]).

:Now, I'm hoping that nothing in what I wrote above shows any "prejudice regarding the issue". I want to be completely open-minded and even-handed in my writing, because I love Philip as a brother but I also respect you, dear sir. And I'm thinking about our readers. For every 1 person who comments, probably 10 or 50 people '''read''' these discussions and ponder them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:: "''Calculations are calculations and nothing more''": Yes, but dates are calculations built on assumptions. See [[radiometric dating]]. Otherwise much of Everwill's post, as before, was rhetoric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Every waking (and sleeping) moment of life is based on assumptions. If we spend our lives questioning every single assumption then we are paralyzed with analysis. Unless you yourself dedicate your life to being a geologist then you have no basis or authority to question the assumptions and conclusions of those who have in good faith dedicated themselves to the study of geology. (Geologists go to church too.)

:::What about the issue of a flat-earth? Are we going to explain the basis for flat-earth theory? Can we not post a graphic depicting the simple truth that things on the bottom of a sphere fall off the sphere? Can we not point to the obvious fact that the earth pretty much appears flat?

:::What about Earth-centric astronomy? Can we explain the rationale and the thinking behind why some well-educated well-informed people believed and believe that the Earth, or more specifically Jerusalem, is the center of the universe?

:::Can we also punch into the article about the [[Moon]] the theory that the Moon is made from green cheese?

:::In other words where do you draw the line. At what point do you realize that the explanations refuting these theories are wastes of time and are only there for the benefit of a tiny tiny minority of people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand why the majority has reached another conclusion? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, much of life is based on assumptions. That's no reason to disregard those questioning those assumptions and just argue that assumptions need not be questioned. And neither is it intellectually honest to argue that something that is based on disputed ''assumptions'' is ''proved''.
:::: If the geologists' assumptions are worldview-based, then I have as much right to question them as anyone else. Besides, there are ''geologists'' who question those assumptions also. Geologists are trained in ''geology'', not ''worldviews''.
:::: The shape of the Earth and the composition of the moon can be ''observed''; the age of the Earth ''cannot''.
:::: You draw the line at teaching the ''evidence'', both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth ''do'' understand ''why'' others reached another conclusion, because ''they themselves'' used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often ''by the evidence''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not denigrating and hope it hasn't been perceived as such. I'm going out of my way to remain as respectful as possible. But think of it this way: if you're anything like me (and every other human on the planet), sometimes you're just flat-out wrong.

This time: you're just plain wrong.

Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. No one alive knows the answer to that question. In a brazen display of arrogance, you claim to know the answer to that question. Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated. At the same time, a Biblical scholar would be wise to say that a popular interpretation of the Bible suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact. Others may interpret the Bible differently.

I'm quite sure that in the mountains of geological evidence that has been compiled you can point to certain factors that support your opinion. Just as the 9/11 Truthers can point to "evidence" to support their beliefs, I'm certain you have evidence to support your belief. I'm equally certain you can find mysteries in the science of geology. That's why we continue to study geology, because we don't understand the entire planet yet. Neither of those two facts change the reality that since the 18th Century, Young Earth geology has been shattered as a theory time and time again by countless geologists.

The question remains: are we going to take seriously the flat-earth theory, the green cheese theory and the other "scientific" theories? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Points of Agreement==
There are few points of agreement between the modern science of Geology and Young Earth science. But in the interest of advancing the article I'm going to labor through what I see as a very short list of agreement.

* You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.
* I have a right to teach my children whatever I want.
* Cataclysmic geology was a popularly held theory until 1775.
* A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.
* The vast majority of working geologists scoff at "young earth theory" and "cataclysmic geology".
* Working geologists find mineral resources for mining companies, oil companies and others. Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.
* Theoretical geologists in the field perform research every day about the history of the Earth's crust. The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.
* We are in agreement that unpopular scientific opinion is not necessarily the wrong opinion. For example, it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction.
* You believe that geology has something to do with theology.

''That last bullet point alone should be enough to stop a well-reasoned person in their tracks.''

My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated. As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not. I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty. Furthermore, I cannot stand silent, while under the banner of conservatism someone else champions a position founded in ignorance.

Maybe the conclusion or lesson is that online references such as this and Wikipedia can't work. How does one resolve the fact that there will always be vocal passionate minorities who hold beliefs that contradict accept theory?

All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Geology

2008-04-02T15:05:09Z

Everwill: /* Comment */

Talk:Geology

2008-04-02T11:14:27Z

Everwill: /* Comment */

Geology

2008-04-02T10:17:10Z

Everwill: /* History of Geology */ Read the references if you truly want the answers to these questions.

{{Etymology|From the [[Greek]] γη- (ge-, "the [[earth]]") and λογος (logos, "word", "[[reason]]")}}
'''Geology''' is the [[science]] and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, [[history]] and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences.

==History of Geology==
The term geology was first used in the late 18th Century. Although geology was not mentioned in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] before 1800, by 1809 geology had a lengthy entry. During the earliest days of geological study, mainstream scientific geology was divided into three camps: Plutonists, Neptunists and Catastrophists. Of course, the vast majority of all geologists then (as now) were theists, but much of early geology was based upon the biblical history. At that time, the Plutonists believed God created the Earth, but volcanoes and fire had shaped the modern world. At the same time, the Neptunists believed that the ocean, perhaps even the Great Flood, was the primary factor in geology. Catastrophists on the other hand believed that the Earth had been created by God in one great catastrophe. Thus, Catastrophists concluded that everything which we now see was much the same as the world was at [[Creation]]. At that time, it was generally presumed by geologists and theologians that the Earth was around six thousand years old. Many Young Earth Creationists still agree with this interpretation.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>

In 1775, James Hutton presented a thesis, ''Theory of the Earth'', to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Hutton, who is considered by some to be the father of modern geology, attempted to explain the rationale for his conclusion that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed. Coupling observation with the [[scientific method]] he believe that the Earth must be very old indeed. In every direction he looked Hutton saw evidence of eroded mountains, dry land which had once been sea, and sediment and rocks at the bottom of the ocean. After ten years of study he published his findings in his book ''Theory of the Earth'' to document his claims of a much older Earth. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12861</ref><ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14179</ref>

While met with initial controversy, over time much of Hutton's conclusions were borne out by observations collected from around the world during the rise of the British Empire and in the [[Royal Geographic Society]]. Based upon mounting evidence in 1830, Sir [[Charles Lyell]] published the first of what would eventually grow into twelve editions of ''Principles of Geology''. Charles Lyell reported geological processes occurring every day. He documented geological process which have occurred during the recorded history of man. By inference he concluded that geological processes must have occurred before the recorded history of man.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049503/Sir-Charles-Lyell-Baronet</ref><ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/lyell_charles.html</ref> In time, most geologists came to agree with his theory of [[uniformitarianism]].

Modern geology has learned much about the Earth and geologic processes. Volcanism and deformation bring rocks to the surface of the Earth from depths as great as 50 to 100 km. Scientists can make inferences about some of the properties of the Earth at these depths by studying these rocks. But far more information has been provided through the use of seismic waves created by natural earthquakes, and by controlled explosions designed to learn more about the composition of the Earth, including underground nuclear explosions. This data has revealed that the Earth is composed of three main layers, the crust, the mantle and the core. The crust, or outermost layer, varies in thickness from about 5 km under oceans to about 40 km under continents. The mantle consists of an outermost zone of about 100 km thick named the lithosphere. The layer below is a partially fluid solid named the athenosphere, which ends at a depth of about 200 km. As seismic waves penetrate deeper into the mantle they indicate that between 400 km and about 2900 km atoms are packed closer and closer together by extreme pressures, creating a crystalline structure. The Earth's core is 2900 km from the surface. Seismic waves slow down in this region until a depth of 5100 km, indicating that the core consists of a liquid layer surrounding a solid core at the center.<ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Extensive exploration and mapping of the seafloor after World War II led to the discovery of a deep rift running down the center of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In the early 1960s Harry Hess of Princeton University and Robert Dietz of the University of California suggested that the seafloor separates along the rifts in mid-0ceanic ridges and that new seafloor forms by upwelling of hot mantle materials in these cracks, followed by lateral spreading. By 1967 separate lithospheric plates had been identified, which explained phenomena such as high levels of volcanic and earthquake activity that take place between the plates. By the end of the 1960s the theory of plate tectonics proved to be a unifying concept that pulled together diverse theories and explained a the large body of observations in the field. <ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Twelve or so plates slide over a partially molten lithosphere, and the continents, embedded in some of the plates, are carried by them. Where plates collide, mountains such as the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountains are formed. In some places, called subduction zones one plate sinks beneath another plate and returns to the molten regions of the athenosphere. Along mid-oceanic ridges magma emerges to expand the plate and create new sea floor.

==How Old is the Earth==
The modern science of geology is based upon our increasingly improving capacity for observation, the application of the scientific method and established ideas culled from generations of geological research. <ref>http://abcworld.net/Earth.html</ref> Today, satellites are capable of detecting the movement of the land even if that movement is measured in inches per year. <ref>http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/tectonics.htm</ref> Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth. The consensus is approximately 4.6 billion years.

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientist state that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth paradigm is errant and has scores of [[anomaly|anomalies]] (for details please see: [[Geologic system]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).

==Geology Today==
Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.

Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

Geology

2008-04-02T10:15:07Z

Everwill: /* History of Geology */

{{Etymology|From the [[Greek]] γη- (ge-, "the [[earth]]") and λογος (logos, "word", "[[reason]]")}}
'''Geology''' is the [[science]] and study of the solid matter of the Earth, its composition, structure, physical properties, [[history]] and the processes that shape it. It is one of the Earth sciences.

==History of Geology==
The term geology was first used in the late 18th Century. Although geology was not mentioned in the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] before 1800, by 1809 geology had a lengthy entry. During the earliest days of geological study, mainstream scientific geology was divided into three camps: Plutonists, Neptunists and Catastrophists. Of course, the vast majority of all geologists then (as now) were theists, but much of early geology was based upon the biblical history. At that time, the Plutonists believed God created the Earth, but volcanoes and fire had shaped the modern world. At the same time, the Neptunists believed that the ocean, perhaps even the Great Flood, was the primary factor in geology. Catastrophists on the other hand believed that the Earth had been created by God in one great catastrophe. Thus, Catastrophists concluded that everything which we now see was much the same as the world was at [[Creation]]. At that time, it was generally presumed by geologists and theologians that the Earth was around six thousand years old. Many Young Earth Creationists still agree with this interpretation.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>

In 1775, James Hutton presented a thesis, ''Theory of the Earth'', to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Hutton, who is considered by some to be the father of modern geology, attempted to explain the rationale for his conclusion that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed. Coupling observation with the [[scientific method]]{{fact}} he believe that the Earth must be very old indeed. In every direction he looked Hutton saw evidence of eroded mountains, dry land which had once been sea, and sediment and rocks at the bottom of the ocean. After ten years of study he published his findings in his book ''Theory of the Earth'' to document his claims of a much older Earth. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12861</ref><ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14179</ref>

While met with initial controversy, over time much of Hutton's conclusions were borne out by observations collected from around the world during the rise of the British Empire and in the [[Royal Geographic Society]]. Based upon mounting evidence in 1830, Sir [[Charles Lyell]] published the first of what would eventually grow into twelve editions of ''Principles of Geology''. Charles Lyell reported geological processes occurring every day. He documented geological process which have occurred during the recorded history of man. By inference he concluded that geological processes must have occurred before the recorded history of man.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049503/Sir-Charles-Lyell-Baronet</ref><ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/lyell_charles.html</ref> In time, most geologists came to agree with his theory of [[uniformitarianism]].

Modern geology has learned much about the Earth and geologic processes. Volcanism and deformation bring rocks to the surface of the Earth from depths as great as 50 to 100 km. Scientists can make inferences about some of the properties of the Earth at these depths by studying these rocks. But far more information has been provided through the use of seismic waves created by natural earthquakes, and by controlled explosions designed to learn more about the composition of the Earth, including underground nuclear explosions. This data has revealed that the Earth is composed of three main layers, the crust, the mantle and the core. The crust, or outermost layer, varies in thickness from about 5 km under oceans to about 40 km under continents. The mantle consists of an outermost zone of about 100 km thick named the lithosphere. The layer below is a partially fluid solid named the athenosphere, which ends at a depth of about 200 km. As seismic waves penetrate deeper into the mantle they indicate that between 400 km and about 2900 km atoms are packed closer and closer together by extreme pressures, creating a crystalline structure. The Earth's core is 2900 km from the surface. Seismic waves slow down in this region until a depth of 5100 km, indicating that the core consists of a liquid layer surrounding a solid core at the center.<ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Extensive exploration and mapping of the seafloor after World War II led to the discovery of a deep rift running down the center of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In the early 1960s Harry Hess of Princeton University and Robert Dietz of the University of California suggested that the seafloor separates along the rifts in mid-0ceanic ridges and that new seafloor forms by upwelling of hot mantle materials in these cracks, followed by lateral spreading. By 1967 separate lithospheric plates had been identified, which explained phenomena such as high levels of volcanic and earthquake activity that take place between the plates. By the end of the 1960s the theory of plate tectonics proved to be a unifying concept that pulled together diverse theories and explained a the large body of observations in the field. <ref>Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond.1998."Understanding Earth", 2nd Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company</ref>

Twelve or so plates slide over a partially molten lithosphere, and the continents, embedded in some of the plates, are carried by them. Where plates collide, mountains such as the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountains are formed. In some places, called subduction zones one plate sinks beneath another plate and returns to the molten regions of the athenosphere. Along mid-oceanic ridges magma emerges to expand the plate and create new sea floor.

==How Old is the Earth==
The modern science of geology is based upon our increasingly improving capacity for observation, the application of the scientific method and established ideas culled from generations of geological research. <ref>http://abcworld.net/Earth.html</ref> Today, satellites are capable of detecting the movement of the land even if that movement is measured in inches per year. <ref>http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/tectonics.htm</ref> Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth. The consensus is approximately 4.6 billion years.

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientist state that there are numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth paradigm is errant and has scores of [[anomaly|anomalies]] (for details please see: [[Geologic system]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).

==Geology Today==
Geologists help locate and manage the Earth's natural resources, such as petroleum and coal, as well as metals such as iron, copper, and uranium. Additional economic interests include gemstones and many minerals such as asbestos, perlite, mica, phosphates, zeolites, clay, pumice, quartz, and silica, as well as elements such as sulfur, chlorine, and helium.

Planetary geology (sometimes known as Astrogeology) refers to the application of geologic principles to other bodies of the solar system. However, specialised terms such as selenology (studies of the Moon), areology (of Mars), etc., are also in use.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Geology

2008-04-02T10:09:09Z

Everwill: /* Article in need of serious help ... */

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-04-01T10:50:41Z

Everwill: /* Geology */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>>Jan '08]]

== Superb Blocks and Unblocks ==

Superb blocks and unblocks last night!!! Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. It's a pity people like that feel the need to do what they do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Bolding terms ==

HelpJazz, feel free to ask others, but I think the bolding of the key word in the entry is effective, as in [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:I thought you were only supposed to bold it the first time, but if you like bolding it every time then I won't change any others. The manual of style doesn't really indicated either way. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: The Manual of Style says to bold the first use. It doesn't explicitly say to ''not'' bold other uses, but that is the implication. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Re ==

Oh come on, you know libertarian does not equal liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:''I'' do, very much so. It's a rather large pet peeve of mine, when people confuse the two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I'm sorry. I was a little offended when you called me a liberal (twice), intimated that I wasn't smart enough to understand what you were writing, and then suggested that my claims of misunderstanding weren't credible.

:I probably should have held back the sarcasm but I've been sick lately (I slept for almost 30 straight hours Tues/Weds and had a high fever most of the time) and apparently don't have the restraint I usually do. I'll be going to bed soon; hopefully I'll be able to sleep off some more of this sickness and the grumpiness which comes with it. Good night. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:PS: Hopefully I'll get better by spring break; I'll have loads of free time for editing, and a lot of backed up class notes to convert to articles!

==I don't mean to be nosy==
Do you mind if I ask what school you go to? I know someone taking [[chemical engineering]] at Drexel, and it just sparked my interest when I saw you had the same major.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 20:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I go to [[Bucknell University]]. The logo's also on my user page :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==I can never get my head around it==

Why do people like you contribute here? I mean, people like you are honest, hardworking reliable persons who genuinely want to help out. But this place is little more than a hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays. Their Liberals and Homosexuality articles are the laughing stock of the Blogosphere. I'm a Moderately Conservative Blogger (I back mc Cain) and these ultra's make the rest of us look bad. Decent people like yourself are only an accessory to the broader betrayal of conservative principles, which these guys seem to parody every day with articles like [[Liberals and friendship]] or [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[Gay Bomb]]. Its absolutely amazing. [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:29, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not really sure how to take that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe he doesn't fixate on only a few articles and views the project as a whole. HelpJazz has been an invaluable contributor and doesn't feel he has to but heads on every small point he may not agree with. We can all find things we may not like, but there is always a great deal of improvement that can be made in other areas. To reduce our site to a few offending articles and ignore the rest is petty and is hardly something that a conservative blogger would do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::I ''do'' know how to take that! Thanks Learn together :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:53, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Learn Together,

:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].

In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.

McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.

Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Standing up to the gay rights movement? What are you standing up for? Really, put down Ann Coulter for a second and think for yourself.

Christ asks us not to look at the speck in our brothers eye when we haven't taken care of the plank in our own. This entire place is preachy, hypocritical and incredibly mean. Jesus would be weeping if he saw what his so called flock have produced.

Standing up to evil? Liberals are therefore evil? Homosexuals are therefore evil? And Liberals giving dictatorships a free pass... I'm sorry, where are you getting this nonsense? What is it that Bush said while campaigning in 2000 - 'I don't like going into another country and telling them how to do things our way' This was of course a response to the interventionist Gore, who advocated going into countries swarmed by civil strife. Clinton intervened in many countries (Though not enough in Rwanda) Read a book, ignoramus. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:"[[Think for yourself]]" is a [[liberal code word]] for "reject wisdom merely because it comes from another person". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:59, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And he ignores the rest... Typical tactic, ignore what someone else says, create new saying and somehow fit Liberal into every second sentance. Helpjazz, how can you continue to work with these people? [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 11:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't come here to argue or change minds. When I do interact with people, I do so in a kind and calm manner, instead of attacking that in which someone else believes. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Carter's mouth==

HJ, thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Negotiating_with_terrorists&diff=next&oldid=408189 permalink]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

IS there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 17:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not exactly. For general things you might try [[talk:Main Page]], or for a specific issue you might want to try a related debate or article. There isn't really an announcement board, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have done so and I would like you to direct as many people as possible to it cause I need opinions. I would like you to comment as well. [[Talk:No Mercy (2007)|Here you go]].--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 18:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Complaint, but then ... ==

HelpJazz, you complained about a lack of citations for [[abortion deceit]], but then did not help me fill in the citations. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:It wasn't a complaint as much as a comment. I've been in and out all day, since I'm on a school trip, and haven't had a lot of time to search. I'm generally not good at finding cites for those sorts of claims anyway :-/ I'll see if I can dig anything up now that I'm back for the night..
:In general, I find it best if the person who put in the claim puts in his own cites. You obviously know more about it and better know where to find cites, whereas I would be starting from scratch. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed he had because somebody had already removed him from the template itself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh I didn't even notice that he was removed from the template. I think he's more or less given up so it's an easy mistake to make. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

Thanks for this:
PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)
Quite true, and nicely phrased =)
I was thinking of changing some of that anyway, but it was night-time here. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, well, the two-axis scale is something in which I'm pretty proficient :) I really like your userboxes, by the way. And I actually agree with a lot of them! (I don't know my exact score off the top of my head, but I'm somehere in the bottom right quadrant on political compass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:30, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== SofaZebra ==
Thank you thank you thank you.
Your's sincerely, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==[[Geology]]==

Help? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm afraid I'm not sure what I can do. I know very little about geography (Christian or otherwise) and Philip's been studying creation science longer than I've been alive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly there are statements in that article which make Conservapedia a laughing stock. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== "Libertarian" ==

Just face it, you are a conservative. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:19, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:As much as this destroys my street cred to say so, I differ in one essential area: I don't think that my conservatism should be pushed onto others through the coercive force of the government. If nothing else, you've got to admit that I at least have the lingo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ouch. You so have *zero* cred now. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah. Can't get a street loan anymore :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-03-31T20:11:06Z

Everwill: /* SofaZebra */

Talk:Geology

2008-03-31T20:06:52Z

Everwill: /* Article in need of serious help ... */

Talk:Geology

2008-03-31T11:29:48Z

Everwill: /* Article in need of serious help ... */

Talk:Geology

2008-03-31T11:24:33Z

Everwill: /* Article in need of serious help ... */

Beltway

2008-03-30T12:00:48Z

Everwill: In fact, the Beltway never crosses any waters or portion of the District of Columbia.

A '''beltway''' is a [[highway]] that encircles an [[urban]] area so that [[traffic]] does not have to go through that urban area.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beltway "Beltway," from Dictionary.com]</ref>

"The Beltway" as a proper noun typically refers to I-495, properly called "The Capital Beltway," the eastern half of which is also designated I-95. The Capital Beltway is a 6 to 8 lane highway which surrounds [[Washington DC]]. It loops through [[Suburb]]an [[Maryland]] and Northern [[Virginia]] around the District of Columbia. The Beltway crosses the [[Potomac]] River at two points, by way of the American Legion Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. <ref>[http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge.html "Woodrow Wilson Bridge," from Roads to the Future]</ref>) Both the [[American Legion Bridge]] and the [[Woodrow Wilson Bridge]] are choke-points for area traffic. <ref>http://www.traffic.com/Washington-DC-Traffic/I-495_Capital_Beltway-1.html</ref>

Because the Beltway is a closed loop, the usual directional terminology used on other highways is ineffective in describing I-495. Thus, rather than traveling on North I-495 or East I-495, the two directions on the Beltway are called the "Inner Loop" and the "Outer Loop". Travelers on the Inner Loop of the Beltway move in a "clockwise" direction, while Outer Loop travelers travel the opposite direction.

The Beltway is an extremely busy roadway, used by tourists, commuters and interstate travelers. During rush hour it is not uncommon for the Beltway to slow to thirty miles per hour or less due to the factors such as traffic volume, accidents or weather related delays. The phrase "Inside the Beltway" refers to political matters related to the Capitol in Washington DC. <ref>http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/beltway.htm</ref> "Inside the Beltway" is also a regular column in the [[Washington Times]]. Most governmental agencies and buildings are located inside the Beltway in Maryland, DC or Virginia.

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

Beltway

2008-03-30T11:56:55Z

Everwill:

A '''beltway''' is a [[highway]] that encircles an [[urban]] area so that [[traffic]] does not have to go through that urban area.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beltway "Beltway," from Dictionary.com]</ref>

"The Beltway" as a proper noun typically refers to I-495, properly called "The Capital Beltway," the eastern half of which is also designated I-95. The Capital Beltway is a 6 to 8 lane highway which surrounds [[Washington DC]]. It loops through [[Suburb]]an [[Maryland]] and Northern [[Virginia]] (and for a very short distance over the waters of the District of Columbia<ref>[http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge.html "Woodrow Wilson Bridge," from Roads to the Future]</ref>), crossing the [[Potomac River]] in two different locations. The [[American Legion Bridge]] and the [[Woodrow Wilson Bridge]] are choke-points for area traffic. <ref>http://www.traffic.com/Washington-DC-Traffic/I-495_Capital_Beltway-1.html</ref>

Because the Beltway is a closed loop, the usual directional terminology used on other highways is ineffective in describing I-495. Thus, rather than traveling on North I-495 or East I-495, the two directions on the Beltway are called the "Inner Loop" and the "Outer Loop". Travelers on the Inner Loop of the Beltway move in a "clockwise" direction, while Outer Loop travelers travel the opposite direction.

The Beltway is an extremely busy roadway, used by tourists, commuters and interstate travelers. During rush hour it is not uncommon for the Beltway to slow to thirty miles per hour or less due to the factors such as traffic volume, accidents or weather related delays. The phrase "Inside the Beltway" refers to political matters related to the Capitol in Washington DC. <ref>http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/beltway.htm</ref> "Inside the Beltway" is also a regular column in the [[Washington Times]]. Most governmental agencies and buildings are located inside the Beltway in Maryland, DC or Virginia.

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

Talk:Geology

2008-03-30T11:48:05Z

Everwill: /* Locked? */

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-22T20:51:54Z

Everwill: /* Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right.

::That said, I must add that "magic" is a large word used to describe a great many things. In the case of most fantasy works, "magic" refers to technology that is not fully understood by the user. For example, to a cave man, a television is "magic". What you are talking about is probably "witchcraft" or "necromancy" other "dark art". These types of powers are "supernatural" or "divine". Supernatural powers which are derived from something other than God are what I understand the Bible to prohibit. There is no prohibition against prayers, miracles or technology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: We are also told to judge with a righteous judgement; there's no total ban on judging.
::: Not everything that happens is according to God's will (in a sense). He doesn't want any of us to perish, suffer, etc. But He allows these things because we've rejected him. As such, things that could be described as accidents do occur. I can comprehend God, and clearly you believe that yo can too, else you would not be making comments such as God having a plan for us all. That doesn't mean that we can or do understand ''everything'' about Him; there would be an awful lot that we don't and can't understand, but we ''can'' understand some things.
::: I quite agree, however, with your last paragraph.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well then, we are in very nearly total agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-21T14:53:10Z

Everwill: /* Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right.

::That said, I must add that "magic" is a large word used to describe a great many things. In the case of most fantasy works, "magic" refers to technology that is not fully understood by the user. For example, to a cave man, a television is "magic". What you are talking about is probably "witchcraft" or "necromancy" other "dark art". These types of powers are "supernatural" or "divine". Supernatural powers which are derived from something other than God are what I understand the Bible to prohibit. There is no prohibition against prayers, miracles or technology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-21T14:52:45Z

Everwill: /* Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right.

That said, I must add that "magic" is a large word used to describe a great many things. In the case of most fantasy works, "magic" refers to technology that is not fully understood by the user. For example, to a cave man, a television is "magic". What you are talking about is probably "witchcraft" or "necromancy" other "dark art". These types of powers are "supernatural" or "divine". Supernatural powers which are derived from something other than God are what I understand the Bible to prohibit. There is no prohibition against prayers, miracles or technology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-21T14:46:55Z

Everwill: /* Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-18T11:04:36Z

Everwill:

[[Image:Dungeons_and_Dragons.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A ''Dungeons & Dragons'' game in progress.]]
'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Largely considered harmless fantasy, the game has attracted some criticism.

Players do not compete with one another. Rather the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules. Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. The game was eventually sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late seventies the game's popularity exploded and it can rightly be said that the game is now a part of American culture. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have largely been addressed and the game remains controversial to only a tiny minority of Americans.

==D&D Terminology==
Because D&D was a revolutionary game, it developed its own unique set of terminology to describe certain concepts in the game. Here's a quick list of important game terms which may be important to understand the game and its impact on American society.

::* ''Dungeon Master'' --- The Dungeon Master (DM) is not the player's opponent or ally, but is the game's referee. As the referee, it is the DM's responsibility to adjudicate the results player's actions. Additionally, the DM must play the role of monsters and the player's opponents. The DM has a duty to make the game fair, fun and playable. Many derivative games refer to this player as the Game Master or GM.
::* ''Player'' --- Any participant in the game that is not the DM.
::* ''Player Character'' --- The player character (or character) is the player's in-game persona. The character is most usually a heroic archetype such as a warrior, priest, wizard or rogue of some kind. The game allows for each archetype (called a "class") to possess unique skills and powers. If the player character survives the game session, the character can advance in experience and acquire higher levels and powers.
::* ''Monster'' --- A monster is any creature or in game character who may provide a challenge to the player characters. Many ''monsters'' like dragons or giants are monstrous, but others are fantastic such as pixies or unicorns. The DM chooses the actions of monsters.
::* ''Campaign'' --- In traditional games, the game ends and the game session ends. In D&D, the game continues through multiple sessions with the game always picking up where the last session ended. A series of game sessions that have some internal logic or structure is called a ''campaign''.
::* ''Spells'' --- In D&D, the term ''spells'' describe imaginary powers bestowed to certain player characters. This would be analogous to [[Gandalf]]'s fireworks or [[Merlin]]'s enchantments. In the game, spells are designed to mimic the powers and abilities found in fantasy literature and have no further relation to [[witchcraft]] or anything occult.
::* ''Experience Points'' --- Experience Points or XP are a metric representing the number of the heroic actions of a player character has achieved in a given campaign. The more XP a character acquires, the more powers and abilities the character has in the game. [[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons & Dragons.]]
::* ''d20'' --- Actions and combat in D&D are most often resolved by rolling polyhedral [[dice]]. While standard dice are six-sided cubes, polyhedral dice have can have 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, or 4 sides. To distinguish between dice the standard nomenclature is ''d#'' where the # indicates the number of sides on the die. The d20 is the most commonly rolled die in D&D.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s [[Lord of the Rings]]. For example a DM might say to the players, "You have arrived the edge of a deep pit. The pit is so deep as to prevent you from seeing the bottom and so wide as to look impossible to jump. Far below you hear hissing and rustling as if a thousand poisonous snakes await you in the darkness."

Depending upon how motivated the players are to continue in this direction, the players might ask the DM various interrogatories such as "Is it possible to walk along the edge of the pit and continue down the passage?" or "Is there anything on the opposite side of the pit to which we might be able to tie a rope?"

Next the players will decide what course of actions their characters will take. Each player tries to take advantage of his character's unique talents. For example, the player of the rogue will know that his character is skilled at climbing walls. By jamming his fingers and toes into the cracks in the mortar, the rogue can negotiate along the wall to the opposite side. If the character's actions are reasonable and relatively easy to accomplish the DM allows for them to happen without further comment. If the action is more outrageous, or risky, the DM consults rules and conventions to determine which dice will govern the success of the action.

At the end of each gaming sessions, the DM grants all players a number of Experience Points (XP's) to represent the player accomplishments. When the character has acquired enough Experience Points, the character can gain more powers and abilities.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically do "anything" there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own needs. Animals and certain other creatures don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Some characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic, but only whether it is good or evil. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling. The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, i.e. wizard, barbarian, rogue, or cleric. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode.

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, [[Lord of the Rings]] was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'' and opts to describe all rules with the feminine pronoun ''she''. This was perhaps not a political statement, but rather an attempt to market the game to females.

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to hold up ''neutral'' as the ideal. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]].

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystander's the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game begged other questions, such as why are there no angels in the game? There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[divas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri," and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator."

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no age restriction on who may buy it), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous. But, most Christians see no problem with fictional works such as these.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In it's earliest days, OD&D often sold out leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated because of the game's popularity and as people became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were involved gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's no longer possible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just atheism or monotheism in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But, this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men are real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus.

Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. But ultimately, D&D is a game of pretend and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes. Many Christian players altering the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs. The parent of a role-playing gamer or any gamer who is concerned for his spiritual health is well-advised to consider the power of role-playing as a behavior modification tool. If you pretend to be heroic long enough, eventually you will be heroic. The danger of pretending to be an atheist or pretending to be an evil character should be obvious and should be avoided.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. In current forms of the game there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Warning to Parents and Players====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.

However, parents and adults who play the game should be aware that it is inherently dangerous to regularly and habitually play the part of evil characters. D&D can be a mind-expanding, spiritually affirming game. It can also be the first step on a spiral into darkness.

Role-playing games are neither inherently evil nor good. Rather, role-playing games are emotional mental tools and toys. They can be used to build or they can be used to destroy. Parents who care about their children's spiritual well-being will not allow young or inexperienced children to play D&D without appropriate supervision.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-18T10:55:42Z

Everwill: /* Is the game really about "free will?" */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-18T10:47:53Z

Everwill: /* Is the game really about "free will?" */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-03-17T18:39:13Z

Everwill: /* Is the game really about "free will?" */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)