Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-03-16T20:37:42Z

GTA10477: A note on Darwin

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

Talk:Creationism

2007-03-16T20:35:20Z

GTA10477: Added Hindu creation

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

Creationism

2007-03-16T20:25:58Z

GTA10477: /* Types of Creationists */

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolution]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp]. Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the more literal Genesis interpretations. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

== Types of Creationists ==

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

*[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the idea the young earth creationist view. In this view, In the beginning there was only god, and for some reason He decided to create the world. In the first day, her created the sun (let there be light and it was so). Then on until He created humans. He first created Adam, then created Eve from Adam's rib. He took a rib from Adam's chest and formed it into a woman, which He consequently brought to life. He then told them they could do anything they wanted, except eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. having been fooled by a serpent, Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and then convinced Adam to do the same, and they were thrust from the garden of Eden. They then had two sons, Cain and Abel, who married (The Bible fails to mention 'who' though). The rest of the Bible follows. [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is [[Answers in Genesis]].[http://www.answersingenesis.org/]

*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] agree with the theory that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [http://www.reasons.org].

*[[Theistic Evolution]] is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith. <ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>.

*[[Hindu Creationism|Hindu Creationists]], though they are in the minority of creationists believers, they believe that a vast dark ocean of nothingness laid before Lord Vishnu, protected by the mighty serpent. There was peace and so Vishnu slept peacefully. Then a lotus flower grew from Vishnu's navel, and in the middle of the blossom was Brahma. Vishnu then told Brahma to create the world. So these creationists believe that it is not Vishnu the all-powerful, but Brahma his servant, who created the world. Therefore, this helps absolve the almighty Vishnu of creating a world with imperfection, while maintaining the almighty Vishnu's omnipotence. This corrects some of the problems of the commonly held Christian notion of the creation.
<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm]</ref>.

== Controversial Classification ==

It is unclear if [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is [[Paul Nelson]] who a Young Earth Creationist, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Lists of Creationists]]

==External links ==

===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] - Although not completely Young Earth, [[CreationWiki]] is a mainly Young Earth Creationist Wiki.

=== Old Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Creationism

2007-03-16T20:15:20Z

GTA10477: /* Types of Creationists */

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolution]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp]. Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the more literal Genesis interpretations. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

== Types of Creationists ==

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

*[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the idea the young earth creationist view. [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is [[Answers in Genesis]].[http://www.answersingenesis.org/]

*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] agree with the theory that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [http://www.reasons.org].

*[[Theistic Evolution]] is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith. <ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>.

*[[Hindu Creationism|Hindu Creationists]], though they are in the minority of creationists believers, they believe that a vast dark ocean of nothingness laid before Lord Vishnu, protected by the mighty serpent. There was peace and so Vishnu slept peacefully. Then a lotus flower grew from Vishnu's navel, and in the middle of the blossom was Brahma. Vishnu then told Brahma to create the world. So these creationists believe that it is not Vishnu the all-powerful, but Brahma his servant, who created the world. Therefore, this helps absolve the almighty Vishnu of creating a world with imperfection, while maintaining the almighty Vishnu's omnipotence. This corrects some of the problems of the commonly held Christian notion of the creation.
<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm]</ref>.

== Controversial Classification ==

It is unclear if [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is [[Paul Nelson]] who a Young Earth Creationist, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Lists of Creationists]]

==External links ==

===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] - Although not completely Young Earth, [[CreationWiki]] is a mainly Young Earth Creationist Wiki.

=== Old Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Statistical significance

2007-03-16T20:00:03Z

GTA10477:

In [[statistics]], when one group is shown to be markedly different from another, given an adequate sample drawn from a homogeneous population.

However, if the argument for creationism about the fallibility of science is believed , then groups can only be considered "significantly different" if there results coincide with the Bible. If not, then the science underlying them is fallible, and thus flawed.

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Statistical significance

2007-03-16T19:56:55Z

GTA10477:

In [[statistics]], when one group is shown to be markedly different from another, given an adequate sample drawn from a homogeneous population. These groups are only considered to be "different" if there results coincide with the Bible. If not, then the science underlying them is fallible, and thus flawed.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-16T19:39:56Z

GTA10477:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-03-16T13:25:27Z

GTA10477:

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.