Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Education

2012-04-06T13:48:53Z

HMatthews:

'''Something that [[creationists]] lack'''

'''Education''' is the process, whether in a [[school|formal]] setting or [[homeschooling|not]], of acquiring [[skill]]s and [[knowledge]]. It is most familiar in the schooling of the [[children|young]], but continues throughout life. It is considered a human right, and Article 26 of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) recognizes education along with other necessities such as food, shelter, and water as a fundamental human right, and that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.<ref>''The Universal Declaration on Human Rights'' (1948) [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html United Nations]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref> The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by 192 countries in 1989, affirms the right of all children to free, relevant and quality education.<ref>''Convention on the Rights of the Child'' (1989) [http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/03e.pdf United Nations]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref> As a catalyst for human development, education provides people with the tools and knowledge they need to understand and participate in today’s world. It helps to sustain the human values that contribute to individual and collective well-being. It inspires confidence and provides the skills needed to participate in public debate. It makes people more self-reliant and aware of opportunities and rights.

Academic performance correlates most closely with the amount of time kids spend on homework. The United States has a [[socialism|socialized]] education program, though there are also smaller, competing, [[private school|privately-run schools]] within the country. While it has been the establishment for some time, many have argued against the merits of government run programs.

==Quality of life==
Education enhances the ability of households to manage [[health]] problems, improve [[nutrition]] and [[childcare]], and plan for the future. In developing areas of the world particularly, basic education provides girls and women with a greater understanding of basic health and nutrition, as well as of their own potential.
*Educated women marry later and receive better prenatal care.<ref>''Why is education important?'' (2004) "Education For All" [http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=28703&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*Children of mothers who have received at least a basic education are healthier, better nourished and more likely to receive education themselves than children of mothers who have never received education.<ref>''Why is education important?'' op cit</ref>
*In the [[Philippines]], maternal primary education reduces the risk of child mortality by half and secondary education by a factor of three.<ref>''Education Now: Break the Cycle of Poverty'' (1999) [http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/index.html OXFAM]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*Education helps to prevent the labour, [[trafficking]] and sexual exploitation of children, and their use as soldiers.<ref>''Child Labour Today'' "End Child Exploitation" (2005) [http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/ECECHILD2_A4.pdf UNICEF]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*It is one of the most effective weapons against disease, and raises awareness of living conditions and environmental protection.<ref>''Basic education and gender equality'' (2007) [http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/index_bigpicture.html UNICEF]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*Life expectancy rises by as much as 2 years for every 1 per cent increase in literacy.<REF>''The right to education'' "Education: How can a country with limited resources provide education to all children?" [http://concernusa.org/media/pdf/2007/10/FinalEducation.pdf Concern USA]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>

==Economic development==
Education is essential for [[economics|economic]] development and eradicating [[poverty]]. It allows people to be more productive, to play a greater role in economic life, and to earn a better living.<ref>''Why is education important?'' op cit</ref>
*An adult with a primary education earns twice as much as an adult without any education.<ref>'''Bartholomew, Carolyn''' ''It All Starts with Education'' (2006) [http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138663 OneWorld]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*In [[Niger]], the incidence of poverty is 70% in households headed by adults with no education, compared to 56% for households headed by adults who have received basic education.<ref>'''Dhanarajan, Gajaraj''' ''Combating Poverty through Adult Education'' (lecture; Dennis Irvine Lecture Series, 5 March 2001) [http://www.col.org/colweb/site/cache/offonce/pid/3671 Commonwealth of Learning]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*Farming practices can be improved through basic education.<ref>''Industry Provides Update on Support for Economic, Social Development and Environmental Conservation in World’s Cocoa Regions'' (2006) [http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/for-the-media/wcf_industryupdate.asp worldcocoa.org]. Acessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*In [[Uganda]], four years of primary education raise a farmer’s output by 7%.<ref>'''Mutangadura, G. B. and Lamb, V. L.''' ''Variations in rates of primary school access and enrolments in sub-Saharan Africa: a pooled cross-country time series analysis'' International Journal of Educational Development
Volume 23, Issue 4, July 2003, Pages 369-380 [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD7-48M7TH4-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=01fc5236be0cd5afa9013745bba36513 Science Direct]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>
*It is the foundation for acquiring knowledge and skills necessary to participate in and benefit from globalization and technological change.<ref>''Forum on Technology, Employment and Poverty Alleviation'' "Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia/International Labour
Organization (2002) [http://www.escwa.org.lb/information/publications/edit/upload/tech-02-02.pdf UN]. Accessed 2 February 2008</ref>

However, the idea that higher education through colleges is necessary for greater productivity and higher income is challenged by many. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2008 the average college graduate made $46,000 while the average plumber made $49,200, the average electrician $44,000, the average HVAC tech $47,000 and the average carpenter $42,940. In addition, only 35 percent of students earn a diploma in four years, and just 52 percent graduate in six, with the national college-dropout rate being 65 percent.<ref>http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/02/27/opinion/469171.txt</ref> "Blue collar" tradesmen are also not burdened with years of college debt, nor do they add to the national debt by going into public service in order to have their student loans "forgiven" after 10 years of employment therein (with 120 continuous payments).<ref>[http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-24922.pdfSection 685.219—Public Service Loan, p. 15.27]</ref> Institutions of higher education therefore put a drain on a country's manpower and resources for which there can be no justification in difficult economic times. The previously strong US economy will be restored to its former efficiency when the staggering sums currently being diverted to higher education are put to more effective use in reducing the absurdly high deficit by cutting programs that demonstrably serve no useful purpose.

==Political stability and democracy==
Education makes it possible for people to be responsible and informed citizens, and to have a voice in [[politics]] and [[society]], which is essential for sustaining [[democracy]]. It also provides people with the knowledge and awareness needed to promote tolerance and understanding among people.<ref>''Why is education important?'' op cit</ref>

==Ideology in modern education==
In addition to purely academic teaching, education forms a part in developing a moral and political worldview. In many countries formal religious instruction is part of public education, while the [[United States]], which holds to [[separation of church and state]], no longer formally engages in such. However, it is argued by [[conservatives]] that the modern degree of exclusion of religious belief from the State was not the historical norm.<ref>[http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage19.html Honorable Judge Robert Ulrich Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District, ''Were the Founding Fathers Christian?'']</ref><ref>http://www.naacd.com/issues_judicial.htm</ref> One example invoked in support of this contention is that an estimated 75 percent of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings as late as 1962, when in ''[[Engel versus Vitale]]'', the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] decided that school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional.<ref>Colliers 1961 Yearbook p. 224</ref> It is also argued that it is impossible to completely separate an educational system from moral beliefs,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html Cause and Effect: The Bible, the Educational System, and Its Influence]</ref> and that the modern divorcement of religion from education constitutes an official "establishment of a religion of secularism" - a term used by U.S. [[Supreme Court]] justice Potter Stewart in dissenting from the decision rendered on June 17, 1963 in ''[[Abington School versus Schempp]]'', which outlawed State-sponsored Bible reading in public schools.<ref>http://www.naacd.com/issues_judicial.htm</ref> <ref> Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, ''The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies'', p. 27</ref>

Education in America, especially as its higher level, is typically seen by conservatives as promoting liberalism and helping to promoting [[moral degeneration]]. A (disputed) study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and only 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."<ref>North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press</ref><ref>http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2</ref> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17963/liberal_bias_in_our_schools.html</ref>

Research on the political leanings of their university professors by members of The George Washington University Chapter of Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) found substantial liberal bias in the academy. The school’s faculty gave 92 percent of their political donations ($221,490) to Democratic candidates versus only 8 percent ($20,500) to Republicans in the 2008 primary election. Consistent with this, in the presidential election the ratio was 91 percent to 9 percent.

Similarly, the ratio of Yale faculty donations in the 2004 presidential election between Kerry and Bush was 150:3. The ratio at Princeton was 114:1, and at Harvard, 406:13.<ref>http://www.academia.org/george-washington-slanted-here/</ref>

Law professor Richard D. Parker, after 35 years at [[Harvard University]], noted, “On this faculty, there are around 100 professors or assistant professors, and of that 100, I think you’d have to estimate there would be maybe eight registered Republicans." “I’m a registered Independent…and there’s no one else in the 100 who would identify as a populist.”<ref>http://www.academia.org/harvard-still-hates-america</ref>/

Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel.<ref>[http://www.academia.org/textbook-bias-against-israel]</ref> A landmark book called ''The Trouble with Textbooks'', by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain "repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.” Examples included Jesus being called a ''[[Palestinian]]'', Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as ''Muslims believe...''' The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”, while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

One the glossary of book, ''World History: Continuity and Change'', the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as "Moral laws Moses '''claimed''' to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai," while the very same glossary states the [[Qu'ran]] is a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.” <ref>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=127797</ref>

One textbook publisher, ''Teachers Curriculum Institute'', has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged, and consulting many scholars. The San Fransisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and biased that they should not be used.<ref>San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Friday, February 13, 2004</ref>

Professor, Larry Schweikart notes that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the "Reagan test" as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.<ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/11/president-reagan-gets-the-shaft-in-textbooks/print/ Fox News, March 11, 2010]</ref>

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute conducted extensive surveys in 2006 and 2007 of 14,000 college freshmen and seniors at fifty colleges nationwide, aimed at determining the impact a college education has on civic knowledge. The study resulted in the average freshman and the average senior scoring just over 50% on a sixty-question multiple-choice exam on fundamental knowledge of America’s history and institutions. An additional survey of 2,508 American adults resulted in the average college graduate scoring 57% in a thirty-three-question basic civics test, correctly answering only four questions more than the average high school graduate.

While scores indicated a college education resulted in little advance in knowledge of American history and institutions, an often significant increase in favoring liberal ideology was seen over those who were not college graduates. In addition, those with the highest degrees were the most liberal.<ref>[http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2010/major_findings_finding1.html Intercollegiate Studies Institute,] ''The Shaping of the American Mind.''</ref>

James Piereson, in analyzing changes in higher education in America, comments on the growth of the ''liberal university'', and which was then displaced by the ''left university'' during the revolutionary years of the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, with its alterations becoming institutionalized in the years that followed. Some of the noted resultant changes are that,
{{cquote|single-sex colleges all but disappeared; college regulation of student morals disappeared as well; government regulation of employment expanded, putting pressure on institutions to hire women and minorities for faculty positions; the line between teaching a subject matter and advocating political positions was blurred or even eliminated altogether as the new campus radicalism asserted that all teaching is political in nature; the liberal underpinnings of academic culture--the freedom to teach and conduct research--were attacked and eroded in the name of political correctness; the unifying character of the humanities was subverted and discredited when they were said to represent an oppressive tradition formed by white European males; new fields, usually with ideological preconceptions, were created outside the traditional departments and areas of study, thus expanding the positions available for radical faculty; serious academic requirements, including foreign language proficiency, were softened or eliminated.

...the radicals of the 1960s went further to launch a wholesale attack on American culture and the middle-class way of life, which they condemned as repressive and, worse, boring. The cultural radicalism of the 1960s, derived from the Beats of the 1950s, was so appealing to the new campus left because it promised something beyond political reform--namely, a different way of life with a revised set of morals... <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6120&R=163E436DC8VI James Piereson, ''The Left University'', part VI], The Weekly Standard, October 3, 2005 Volume 011, Issue 03</ref>}}

In his State of the Union address of 2010, President Obama called for providing complete "forgiveness" of student loans to students who spend 10 years (with 120 continuous payments) employed in public service. However, this would be an extension of 2007 College Cost Reduction Act, which took effect in July 2009. Public service includes government and non-profit work, but excludes employment in religious instruction or proselytization.<ref>[http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-24922.pdf Section 685.219—Public Service Loan, p. 15.27]</ref> In addition to increasing the [[national debt]], this provision may be seen as being conducive to further promoting an entitlement mentality, and populating government with those who often manifest and propagate the same.

==Quotes about teaching==

* [[Galileo Galilei]]: "You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself."<ref> [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/eduquote.htm Quotes on Education]</ref>

* [[George Orwell]]: "the present-day attitude towards education is enormously more humane and sensible than that of the past." [http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/such-such-were-the-joys.htm]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==See also==
*[[Citizens For Excellence In Education]]
*[[Homeschooling]]
*[[Liberal Myths About Education]]
*[[Pygmalion effect]]

==External links==

* [http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml U.S. Department of Education], the major federal agency for education in the U.S.
* [http://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Education Statistics], an excellent research resource for educational statistics.
* [http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ National Assessment of Educational Progress], for researchers and educators interested in assessment issues.
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html A history of the modern homeschool movement], from the Cato Institute.
* [http://www.nheri.org National Home Education Research Institute], a research resource for homeschoolers.
* [http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html The Effort Effect] - According to a Stanford psychologist, you’ll reach new heights if you learn to embrace the occasional tumble.
* [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/hl1013.cfm Why Won't Politically Correct Professors Teach English and American Literature?] - Dr. Elizabeth Kantor at '''[[Heritage Foundation|The Heritage Foundation]]''' talks about why English professors don't seem to want to teach English and American literature, and about why the consequences of that failure are more important than you might think.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/education/ What Liberals Say - Category: Education], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:education]]

Brainwashing

2012-04-06T13:42:35Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for [[religion]]?'''

'''Brainwashing''' is any form of mental conditioning under [[torture]], [[starvation]], sleep deprivation, or [[hypnosis]] to coerce captives either to make propaganda statements or to perform some other act not in keeping with one's loyalties or moral code.

== History of the term ==
The first modern use of the word was by CIA operative Edgar Hunter. He used it to describe "[[re-education]]" practices used on prisoners of war by the Communist Chinese during the [[Korean War]]<ref name=Hunter>Hunter E, "'Brain-Washing' Tactics Force Chinese into Ranks of Communist Party," ''Miami News'', September 24, 1950. Cited by John Marks, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate", ch. 8 ("Brainwashing"), in ''The Psychedelic Library''. <http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/marks8.htm></ref>. The chief concern was that seventy percent of American [[prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] had confessed to various activities, including without limitation the use of biological agents, that fall under the category of "[[war crime]]s." Another fifteen percent collaborated actively with their captors, and only five percent resisted to the end. All prisoners had been subject to often brutal interrogation techniques, including sleep deprivation.

Marks reports that the [[CIA]] attempted to develop a brainwashing technique of their own. After years of experimentation, they concluded that no reliable method existed to make anyone do or say anything he would not otherwise want to do, except that months of the brutal regimen in Soviet or Chinese prisons would be sufficient to cause a prisoner to say or do anything to bring the ordeal to an end. Marks also notes that British and other allied prisoners did not confess or collaborate in such large numbers.<ref name=Marks>Marks J, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate", ch. 8 ("Brainwashing"), in ''The Psychedelic Library''. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/marks8.htm></ref>

The term later appeared in the context of [[religious conversion]] to the [[Unification Church]], and the controversial services of [[Ted Patrick]], who called himself a "[[Deprogramming|deprogrammer]]." However, an investigation by the American Psychological Association in the 1980s ended with the conclusion that "mind control" (as applied to [[religious conversion]] of volunteers) was not a [[scientific]]ally viable theory.<ref name=Molko>''Molko and Leal v. Unification Church'', brief ''amicus curiae'' of the American Psychiatric Association, No. SF 25038, Court of Appeal No. A020935, San Francisco Superior Court No. 769-529. Hosted at Center for Studies of New Religions. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://www.cesnur.org/testi/molko_brief.htm></ref>

== The concept in detail ==
Allegations of techniques for impressing an idea or a command on the subconscious mind arguably date back to the [[Crusades]]. Specifically, the Nizari Ismailis, under the leadership of Hassan-e Sabbah, gained a reputation for secret murder against the enemies of Shi'a [[Islam]]. [[Marco Polo]] and others alleged that the operatives of this sect that committed these murders did so while under the influence of [[hashish]], administered to them in a training facility that was part barracks, part bordello. Thus this sect gained the Arabic name ''hashishiyyim'', or ''hashshasheen'', which in Vulgar [[Latin]] became ''asesini'', or Assassins in English.<ref name=looklex>Kjeilen, Tore, "Assassins," ''Encyclopedia of the Orient'', 1996. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://looklex.com/e.o/assassins.htm></ref><ref name=Zalman>Zalman A, "Assassins (Hashishiyyin) (Persia & Syria, 11th-12th Century)", About.com, n.d. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Assassins.htm></ref><ref name=britannica>"Assassin", ''The Encyclopedia Britannica'', 1911. Quoted entirely by M. Snell at About.com. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://historymedren.about.com/od/aentries/a/11_assassin.htm></ref>

Robert Jay Lifton studied former American POWs from the [[Korean War]] and published a description of the specific techniques used on them. He said that all prisoners who made confessions to imagined war crimes had undergone the following stages in their conditioning:

# Assault on identity
# Guilt
# Self-betrayal
# Breaking point
# Leniency
# Compulsion to confess
# Channeling of guilt
# Releasing of guilt
# Progress and harmony
# Final confession and rebirth<ref name=Layton>Layton J, "How Brainwashing Works", HowStuffWorks.com. Accessed April 8, 2009. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm></ref>

The CIA studied the use of hypnosis as a technique either of interrogation or of strengthening resistance to interrogation. The CIA concluded that hypnosis was not a reliable interrogation technique. Nor did the CIA have any confidence that a hypnotized subject could perform an action under a post-hypnotic suggestion. But at the time of the writing of this paper, the authors stated that further research was indicated. Whether such research was ever conducted is unclear.<ref name=cia>"Hypnosis in Interrogation", Central Intelligence Agency. Approved for release per CIA Historical Review Program, September 22, 1993. <https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol4no1/html/v04i1a05p_0001.htm></ref>

Tellingly, the CIA paper made reference to a number of papers asserting that hypnotized subjects could be induced to commit anti-social, self-destructive, or criminal acts.<ref name=Brenman>Brenman, M. Experiments in the hypnotic production of anti-social and self-injurious behavior. ''Psychiatry'', 1942, 5, 49-61.</ref><ref name=Wells>Wells, W. R. Experiments in the hypnotic production of crime. ''J. Psychol.'', 1941, 11, 63-102.</ref>

Today the [[United States Navy]] routinely trains its pilot officer candidates to resist harsh interrogation. The candidate simulates an emergency parachute landing behind enemy lines, and is ordered to attempt to evade capture, accept capture once it becomes inevitable, and endure a regimen of systematic abuse meant to approximate the abuse meted out to captured American pilots during the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name=Dallas>Dallas, David K., Ensign, USNR; personal interview; ca. 1984.</ref>

==References in popular culture==
=== The Manchurian Candidate ===
The most thoroughgoing mention of brainwashing in popular culture was ''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]''.<ref name=manchuria>''The Manchurian Candidate'', dir. John Frankenheimer, with Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury, and Khigh Dhiegh, United Artists, 1962.</ref><ref name=marks2>"The story was about a joint Soviet-Chinese plot to take an American soldier captured in Korea, condition him at a special brainwashing center located in [[Manchuria]], and create a remote-controlled assassin who was supposed to kill the President of the United States." [http://www.djmsp.com/feedingtrough/reading/The_Search_for_the_Manchurian_Candidate.pdf The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control], by John Marks</ref> This was also the most controversial such mention, because the theme involved inducing a person not only to confess to a crime he had not committed, but to commit murder on command and then forget that he had done so.

The fictional technique, which no one has been able to replicate, was described only as "part light-induced, part drug-induced." The character of the psychiatrist in charge of the brainwashing program cites the Brenman and Wells papers also cited by the CIA in its study of hypnosis in interrogation.<ref name=Brenman/><ref name=Wells/> This indicates the extraordinary depth of research conducted either by Richard Condon, the original novelist, or by George Axelrod, author of the treatment and script.

Remarkably, the premise of the film was that not only did the Communist psychiatrists hypnotize one man among several prisoners to be a conscienceless killer, but they ''also'' induced his fellow prisoners to plant a false story portraying him as a hero, and to repeat monotonously that they found him {{cquote|the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I have ever met in my life}}

This although the character involved was in fact cold, spiteful, and misanthropic.

But the film also suggests that any such conditioning might unravel under a stress that proves too great for the conditioning to override. In the film, the hypnotized assassin shoots and kills his father-in-law, and then shoots the wife he had married only days before. The simple shock of that loss causes him to remember at least bits and pieces of the truth, though only in strange and frightening dreams. More to the point, his former commanding officer and another surviving ex-prisoner start to remember the truth in ''their'' dreams—because the enemy psychiatrists had perhaps neglected the conditioning of the survivors, or perhaps simply overestimated the power of their own technique. The former officer is then able to override the conditioning and learn the full particulars.

In short, the [[Communist]] psychiatrists depicted in this film make three key mistakes, all of which contribute to the failure of their plan:

# They hypnotize the subject's fellow prisoners to say nice things about him, but never bother to hypnotize the subject to "remember" that those same people considered him a friend.
# They never follow up on the conditioning of the other prisoners, with the result that those prisoners begin to remember, at first only in their dreams, a real sequence of events vastly and critically different from the sequence that they were ordered to "remember."
# The American operator gives the subject an assignment that involves killing someone he loves. The stress of that loss alone causes his own conditioning to break down and prompts him to turn for help to his former commanding officer, who by now knows the truth.

The shortcomings depicted in that film are consistent with the realization that the CIA eventually found themselves unable to develop a reliable technique for interrogation under hypnosis. To date the records of the [[United States Army]], and those of the other armed services, contain no known instance of a former prisoner of war who carried out an act of war against the United States upon a command given as a post-hypnotic suggestion.

=== The Family Man ===
In the more modern motion picture ''[[The Family Man]]'', a young woman pleads with her father, "Promise you won't kidnap me and my brother and plant stuff in our brains?" <ref name=famimdb>''The Family Man'' at the Internet Movie Database. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218967/quotes></ref>

==See also==
*[[The Manchurian Candidate]]
*[[Barack Obama]]
*[[Scientology]]

==External links==
*[http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm How Brainwashing Works] by Julia Layton

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:psychology]]

Rapture

2012-04-06T13:41:55Z

HMatthews:

'''Rapture is a hysterical belief associated with average brainwashed christians'''

Within Protestant theology, the '''Rapture''' is an event involving believers of Jesus Christ that will take place in the [[Last Days]]. Outside of theological contexts, ''rapture'' is also a noun meaning ''"a state of being carried away by overwhelming emotion"''.

==Meaning of the term==
The word ''rapture'' is not found in the Bible, but taken from the Greek word "harpazo" (pronounced har-pad'-zo). The term is found 13 times in the New Testament (including Revelation 12:5 which addresses Jesus' ascent described in the Book of Acts). According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, "Harpazo" means "to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)." To this effect, most modern Christian ministries{{fact}} imply that "rapture" means "harpazo," which specifically points to being "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

Others have derived the concept of the rapture from the Greek word έκσταση, which is translated as ''ekstasi''.

==Origin of the doctrine==
There are several theories on the origin of the rapture.<ref>Sanders, E.F. [http://www.theologue.org/origins.html ''The Origin of the Pretribulational Rapture Theory''] (n.d.)</ref> Most of these are dated from the late 18th century onwards, but the concept was most popularly explained by [[John Nelson Darby]], a mid-19th century preacher.

==Biblical References and Exegesis==
John Nelson Darby interpreted 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 as the occasion on which future believers in Jesus Christ will be suddenly taken away prior to the events of the war of Armageddon and the ushering in of the Millennial Kingdom:
{{Bible quote|But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.' For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be ''caught up'' together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.|book=1Thessalonians|chap=4|verses=13-18|version=KJV}}

===Conditions that Could Precede the Rapture===
Some Evangelical commentators{{fact}} suggest that the following events need to occur prior to the Rapture taking place:
* Lawless conditions in the world, as in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:36-41)
* The rise of a powerful government in Europe with its origins in the Roman Empire (Daniel 9, Revelation 13)
* The rise of powerful countries to the north, south, and east of Israel (Daniel 11)
* Israel living in peace with its neighbors (Ezekiel 38)
* A peace treaty between Israel and the Arabs for seven years (Daniel 9)
* The commencement of the rebuilding of the Jewish temple on it's original site in Jerusalem.

The website 'Rapture Ready' maintains an index of how close the world apparently is to the Rapture.<ref>[http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html Rapture Ready]</ref>

===Relationship with Tribulationism===
There is some debate within dispensationalist/tribulationist circles over whether the Rapture will occur before, during or after the reign of the [[Antichrist]], but the original reference by St [[Paul]] that "we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air" (at I Thessalonians 4:17) clearly dates it to the time of the [[Second Coming]], and does not suggest in any way that it will result in Christians being spared in advance the horrors of the [[Last Times]], as is sometimes proposed. Matthew 24:29-35 seems to favor the post-tribulation position, however:

{{Bible quote|Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=29-35|version=KJV}}

==Predictions Concerning Timing ==
Throughout history, many people have tried to determine when the rapture will happen, mainly by analyzing the Bible and correlating what it says to events that were happening around them. A recent analysis by Harold Camping, a radio evangelist and founder of eBible Fellowship<ref>[http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/ Bible Fellowship]</ref> computed May 21, 2011 as the day of the rapture, although he uses a drastically different calendar for dating his events that support his view and states that the tribulation began in 1988.

The practice of date setting has drawn criticism in some circles. Critics have pointed to verses such as Mark 13:32 and [[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:36]], which indicate that no one knows the date of the rapture except for God Himself. Furthermore, Jesus predicted that "many false prophets will arise and deceive many people" regarding the date of the rapture ([[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:11]]). Advocates of date setting (such as Harold Camping) have interpreted these verses in ways different to their isolated literal expression.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Midmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Postmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Premillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Pretribulation rapture]]
* [[Posttribulation rapture]]

==External Llinks==
*[http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/raptured_catholics.htm Are Catholics into the Rapture?]
*[http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/ChristianMedia/prophecy_premdisp.html Prophecy and the End-Times]

==Sources==
* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Junk

2012-04-06T13:40:19Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for [[conservapedia]]?'''

A '''junk''' is the flat-bottomed, high-sterned, wide-hulled square-bowed sea-going vessel widespread in East [[Asia]] from [[Japan]] to [[Java]] since antiquity. The term derives from the Javanese “''djong''” (meaning "ship") via the [[Portuguese]] “''junco''”.

Although today it is normally motorised, traditionally it has had one to three masts bearing four- or five-sided “lugsails” that have been frequently made of matting reinforced with horizontal battens. This design negated the need for stays or shrouds and allowed the sail to swivel 360 degrees. On multi-mast vessels the rear mast was often fore-and-aft rigged – this at a time when the generic European freight carrier was exclusively square-rigged.

The hull design is extremely ancient, going back over three thousand years, with variations according to the conditions. From as early as 1000 B. C. - with the advent of canals in south-east China suitable for ocean-going vessels, and the predominance of trade in the shallow estuarine regions of the coast – there was no keel. From as early as the 4th century B.C. a fixed rudder with sternpost was used, often designed in such away as to do some of the work of a keel; even capable of being lowered to well below the bottom of the hull in deeper water. Junks designed for canals and the narrower rivers were slimmer and had one tall mast with the sail near the top, to catch breezes above the often high banks.

At its largest, the junk was the equivalent in size to some of the larger [[European]] [[full-rigged ship]]s of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Some 3000 to 4000 tons deadweight., and up to 60 metres long by 9 metres wide, capable of carrying well over 500 tons of freight.)

Junks looked clumsy but were fine ocean going craft. During the early 15th century fleets of them carrying up to 30,000 men sailed to the extremes of South East Asia and the [[Indian Ocean]] – even further if Gavin Menzies can be believed.

See Gavin Menzies - “''1421 – The Year China Discovered the World''”

References
*“''Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea''”
*''Dictionary of Ship Types''” – Conway Maritime Press, 1986

'''Junk''' is also a nautical word for useless bits of rope and that have been condemned and cut into short lengths and now are only kept for making fenders and matting and the like. It is from this that the meaning of “junk” as rubbish, or anything of no use is derived.

[[Category: Sailing ship types]]
[[Category: Dictionary]]

Intolerance

2012-04-06T13:35:38Z

HMatthews:

'''Perhaps you are looking for [[conservapedia]]?'''

'''Intolerance''' occurs when one does not tolerate the ideas, character, or identity of another.

Intolerance is the supposed target of so-called [[hate speech]] rules and laws. Various special-interest groups have forced companies, schools and governments to define any criticism of their group activities as motivated by hate. Corretta Scott King, for example, conflates homophobia with racial or religious bigotry:
{{cquote|"[[Homophobia]] is like [[racism]] and [[anti-Semitism]] and other forms of [[bigotry]] in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." <ref> [http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=317 Coretta Scott King, 1998] </ref>}}

The error in this argument is obvious. Telling someone about a warning in the Bible does them a favor, without expressing hatred toward them. (In fact, it may be a small step on the road to their salvation.) When a teacher instructs a pupil not to steal from others, not to assault them or tease them, these instructions are for the child's benefit. Similarly, informing homosexuals of the sin they are committing is a case of freedom of speech, whereas a homosexual reacting with intolerant speech toward one's religious beliefs is his/her expression of freedom of speech. It is telling of liberal intolerance that they resort to insults at all.

Many liberals claim that intolerance is purely conservative. However, intolerance is not limited to a side, and anyone can be intolerant. Saying otherwise is similar to calling black-on-white violence "reverse-racism." Racism is race-based hate or discrimination, regardless of the identity of its target.

== External links ==

*[http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=intolerance&gwp=13 Answers.com definition]

==References==

<references/>

[[category:Homosexuality]]
[[category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Ukrainian genocide

2012-04-06T13:31:02Z

HMatthews:

[[Image:Holodomor2.jpg|right|thumb|Genocide victims]]
The word '''Holodomor''' (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is the name given to the "[[genocide]]" of the people of the [[Ukraine]] in 1932-1933. The name literally means "murder by hunger". It is sometimes known as Ukraine's "forced famine" or called "Ukraine's Unknown Holocaust". Holodomor was a "man-made" [[famine]] carried out by [[Stalin]] and the [[Soviet]]s to intentionally destroy the nationalistic Ukrainian people who posed a threat to the Soviet Union. The Soviets forcibly collectivized almost all of the Ukrainian farms in the "breadbasket of the world" and stole the peasant’s food, thereby creating a devastating famine.
<ref> Rep. [[Henry Hyde]] said, "In an attempt to break the spirit of an independent-minded Ukrainian peasantry, and ultimately to secure [[collectivization]], Stalin ordered the expropriation of all foodstuffs in the hands of the rural population. The grain was shipped to other areas of the Soviet Union or sold on the international market. Peasants who refused to turn over grain to the state were deported or executed. Without food or grain, mass starvation ensued. This manmade famine was the consequence of deliberate policies which aimed to destroy the political, cultural and human rights of the Ukrainian people." [http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/uscongr4.htm] </ref>
Even though the man-made famine affected other areas, such as the Volga Basin and the Northern [[Caucasus]], the term ''Holodomor'' refers specifically to the genocide of the Ukrainians.

== Causes ==
[[Image:Collectingcorpses.jpg|right|thumb|Collecting Corpses]]
In 1930 collectivization began of the farms of [[Ukraine]] as part of [[Stalin]]'s [[Five Year Plans]]. The Ukrainian peasants, who had a long tradition of private ownership of farmland, stubbornly resisted the [[Soviets]] efforts. The man-made famine was caused in part due to this resistance, and in part to destroy the Ukrainian people. The people were a danger to the [[Soviet Union]] due to their nationalistic aspirations, that is their desire for independence.<ref>''Голод На Україні 1932-1933''. Selected articles. Compiled by Nadia Karatnycky. Suchasnist, 1985.</ref> At the time of the famine 1932-34, Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, teachers, and political leaders were also harassed, persecuted, and executed<ref>http://ukrainians.rutgers.edu/holodomor.htm</ref>.

==Results==
The total number of deaths surpassed those of [[World War I]]. In the years 1930-1937, collectivization and famine killed up to 11 million people across the Soviet Union, including 6.5 million Ukrainians and about 3 million children. The 1932-1933 famine killed 5 million people in [[Ukraine]], 18.8% of the population.<ref>Robert Conquest, [http://www.ditext.com/conquest/16.html The Death Roll] in ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-19-505180-7.</ref> At the height of the famine, over 25,000 people died every day, 1,000 an hour, or 17 a minute. [[Cannibalism]] was reported across the country.<ref>[http://www.ucca.org/famine/ Ukrainian Congress Committee of America]</ref>
{{cquote|Our neighbour killed his wife, dismembered her body and was seen to make soup of her.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3229000.stm BBC News ''Ukraine marks great famine anniversary'']</ref>}}
Famous [[Russia]]n author [[Boris Pasternak]], who visited the area, commented:
{{cquote|What I saw could not be expressed in words. There was such inhuman, unimaginable misery, such a terrible disaster, that it began to seem almost abstract, it would not fit within the bounds of consciousness. I fell ill. For an entire year I could not write.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963051,00.html TIME ''The War Against the Peasants'']</ref>}}

==Cover-up and "Controversy"==
[[Image:Holodomorchildren.jpg|left|thumb|Starving children Poltava, 1933]]
Holodomor was forcefully covered up by both the Soviet authorities and by various Soviet sympathizers in the West.<ref name=Conquest>Robert Conquest, ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-19-505180-7.</ref> At the time the genocide was committed, the Soviet authorities tried to keep any mention of it from coming out. Later, they kept any information from coming out from behind the Iron Curtain. Soviet historians tried to erase all evidence of this tragedy. They were aided by Western journalists like [[Walter Duranty]] of the ''New York Times'', who not only helped conceal all evidence of Holodomor, but also called other journalists who reported on it liars<ref>[http://www.ucca.org/famine/ Ukrainian Congress Committee of America]</ref><ref name=Conquest />. The lack of knowledge of this genocide was observed by English writer [[George Orwell]], who commented "''huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles"''.<ref>"''Notes on Nationalism''" in "The ''Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell''" ([[London]], 1968), Vol. 3, p. 370.</ref> The Soviets managed to cover this up until Ukraine’s independence in 1991. Official Soviet documents recently declassified revealed that the genocide was indeed intended to target the Ukrainian people<ref>http://5tv.com.ua/eng/newsline/184/0/33564/</ref>.

To this day there are still [[Stalinists]] and Russophiles who attempt to deny Holodomor was genocide, despite the fact that the governments of over 10 nations have officially recognized it as genocide. These countries are: [[United States of America|U.S.A.]], [[Canada]], [[Estonia]], [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Italy]], [[Hungary]], [[Lithuania]], [[Georgia]], [[Poland]], and Ukraine itself <ref>[http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Passed_resolutions/IVForum_petition.html List of nations recognizing the genocide of the Ukrainians]</ref>. Also included is [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://www.skrobach.com/ukrhol.htm Official statement of Pope John Paul II.]</ref> In 2003, the 70th anniversary of the famine, Soviet sympathizers in the [[United Nations|UN]] said the famine "ranks with the worst atrocities of our time" but did not use the word genocide<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4471256.stm BBC News ''Ukraine demands 'genocide' marked'']</ref>. Russia still refuses to admit that it committed genocide. In 2003 the Russian ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin, said "We're not going to apologise... there is nobody to apologise to.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4471256.stm BBC News ''Ukraine demands 'genocide' marked'']</ref>" The Russians were, however, well aware of what was really going on. One of Stalin's lieutenants claimed in 1933 that the genocide was working. He said it showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay.<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html Library of Congress, ''Revelations from the Russian Archives, Ukrainian Famine'']</ref>" In 1988, the U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine reported to [[Congress]], confirming that genocide was committed<ref>[http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine reported to Congress]</ref>.

==Memorials and Remembrances==
[[Image:Holodomor.jpg|right|thumb|Memorial in Kyiv]]
The fourth Sunday of November is officially Holodomor Remembrance Day<ref>http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/forcedfam.htm</ref>. President [[Viktor Yushchenko]] has proposed a bill in [[Verkhovna Rada]], Ukraine's parliament, to strenghthen punishment for denial of Holodomor<ref>[http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/1_14606.html President of Ukraine Official Website ''President proposes Holodomor bill'']</ref> There are many memorials for Holodomor victims throughout North America and Ukraine, the most famous being in [[Kiev|Kyiv]](Kiev).

==See also==
[[Holodomor denial]]
 [[Atheism#Atheism_and_Mass_Murder|Atheism and Mass Murder]]

==Bibliography==
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine'' (1986).
* Davies, R. W., M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft, [http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Ukraine_Famine.pdf Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933], ''Slavic Review,'' Vol. 54, No. 3, Autumn 1995, pp. 642-657.
* Ellman, Michael. [http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1933.pdf Stalin and the Soviet famine of 1932-33 Revisited], ''Europe-Asia Studies''. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, pp. 663-93.
* Ellman, Michael. [http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman.pdf The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934], ''Europe-Asia Studies'', Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, pp. 823-841.
* Ellman, Michael. [http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/13843937.html Bitter Harvest], ''Hoover Digest'', No. 1, 2008.
* Kohut, Zenon E.; Nebesio, Bohdan Y.; and Yurkevich, Myroslav. ''Historical Dictionary of Ukraine.'' (2005). 854 pp.
* Tauger, Mark B. [http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20%27The%201932%20Harvest%20and%20the%20Famine%20of%201933,%20SR%2091.pdf The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933] ''Slavic Review'', Vol. 50, No. 1, Spring 1991, pp. 70-89 (argues that the harvest was unusually poor).
* Werth, Nicolas. [http://www.massviolence.org/Article?id_article=166 The Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33], ''Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence'', April 2008.
* Wheatcroft, Stephen G. "Towards Explaining Soviet Famine of 1931-3: Political and Natural Factors in Perspective," ''Food and Foodways'', Vol. 12, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 107-136.

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
* [http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php?2#photo Ukrainian Govornment photo archives]
* [http://ukrainians.rutgers.edu/holodomor.htm Rutgers Ukrainian Studies]
* [http://www.ukrainianmuseum.org/0311ukrmus_UNFamineBrochure.pdf Brochure of Ukrainian Museum presentation to the UN]
* [http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/ Information and archive of links]
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3897393411603039499&q=famine ''Harvest of Despair'' Documentary Film]
* [http://www.encyclopedia{{of}}ukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=/pages/f/a/famine.htm Encyclopedia of Ukraine Entry ''"Famine"'']
* [http://shevchenko.org/famine/index.htm Bibliography for Further Reading]
* [http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/uscongr4.htm Statement of US House of Representatives]
* [http://www.senat.gov.pl/K6/DOK/uch/007/a/090uch.pdf Official Statement of Polish Government]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Ukraine]]
[[Category:Genocide]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]

Young Earth Creationism

2012-04-06T13:27:17Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for [[retard]]?'''

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].

=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===

''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]

Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent.

The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.

Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:

Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]

The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.

On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>

See also:

*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

==Criticism==
===Lack of scientific acceptance===
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

===Creationist methodology===
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists]</ref>

===Theological===
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''[[a priori]]'', not because of the evidence.
* ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].''
: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be virtually no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Conservative

2012-04-06T13:24:06Z

HMatthews:

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}

'''Perhaps you are looking for [[retard]]?'''

A '''conservative''' is someone who adheres to principles of personal [[responsibility]], moral values, and [[limited government]], agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "[[religion]] and [[morality]] are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>[[Merriam-Webster]]'s Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html</ref>
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of [[economics]] and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most [[logic]]al book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Limited government]] and balanced budgets
* [[Capitalism]] and [[free market|free markets]]
* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Respect for human life and prohibition of [[abortion]]
* The [[death penalty]] for heinous murders proven beyond reasonable doubt
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional [[marriage]], not [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Family values]], including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against [[pornography]]
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Parental control of education ([[parental rights]])
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No [[world government]]
* Enforcement of current laws regarding [[immigration]]
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Minimal Taxation
* [[Federalism]] (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)
* Favoring [[states' rights]] over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government
* A strong national defense
* An [[Originalism|Originalist]] interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]

__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes and Supreme Court nominations)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite [[liberal]] ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], congresswoman
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held views similar to Reagan's
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] [[economist]], influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for [[John McCain]] and 20% for [[Barack Hussein Obama]], with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that [[Satan]] is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into [[Heaven]] by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*[[pray]] to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were [[atheist]] or [[agnostic]]
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were [[Evangelical Christians|Christian evangelicals]]
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as [[born again]], based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the [[Roman Catholic Church]], compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
:''See also: [[Conservative news organizations]] and [[Conservative media]]''
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
:''See also: [[Conservative media]]''
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of [[limited government]].
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# [[Patriotism]], [[nationalism]], and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of [[marriage]].
# Emphasis on social values, like [[prayer]] and [[pro-life]] principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support [[Big government|bigger government]] and [[globalism]], and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "[[isolationism]]," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the [[Soviet Union|Soviets]] near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

==Fiscal Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism==

''For further details on the two related philosophies, see [[Fiscal conservatism]] and [[Social conservatism]]''

Recently, a division has been created between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism centers around a low and [[Balanced budget|balanced]] government [[budget]], and generally is opposed to programs such as [[Social Security]] and [[Medicare]]. Its primary goal is to reduce government spending significantly. Social Conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on the moral issues of conservatism. A social conservative will oppose [[same-sex marriage]], [[abortion]], and the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools. The majority of Conservatives (including most of the [[Republican Party]]) fall into both categories, however some fall into one or the other, but not both. Notably, [[Libertarians]] are strong fiscal conservatives but are not socially conservative. For instance, the [[Libertarian Party]] Platform <ref>[http://www.lp.org/platform]</ref> expresses support for the fiscally conservative principles of ending publicly funded [[welfare]] and [[healthcare]] programs as well as reducing government spending overall significantly. However, it also expresses support for [[same-sex marriage]] (with some libertarians leaning towards the ultimate goal of total [[marriage privatization]]) as well as maintaining the legal status of abortion.

Some Republicans and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] also fit one category but not the other. Former [[New Mexico]] governor [[Gary Johnson]], who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, was deemed "the most fiscally conservative governor" while he was in office (and probably earned that honor given all the spending cuts he made) but at the same time, he supports [[marriage privatization]] and [[abortion]] (though he believes ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' should be overturned on Constitutional grounds). Also, several Democrats have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and/or abortion, but still support liberal fiscal programs such as Social Security. They would be the opposite of Johnson - socially conservative but fiscally liberal.

=== Expected growth of social conservatism and religious conservatism ===

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, [[textbook]]s usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the [[New Deal]], the [[welfare state]], [[labor union]]s, and [[Civil Rights Movement|Civil Rights]] for blacks and [[equality]] for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a [[free market]] reply to the growth of [[big government]]; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies ([[Industrial Workers of the World|IWW]]) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing [[Communist]] subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>

===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the [[Episcopal]] religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The [[Founding Fathers]] created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]] (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting [[monarchy]] and [[aristocracy]], they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "[[Quids]]." They idealized the [[yeoman]] farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to [[corruption]], that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "[[judicial activism]]".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the [[French Revolution]]. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. [[Richard Hofstadter]] (1948) called him "The [[Karl Marx|Marx]] of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with [[Civil Rights]].

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus [[William J. Bennett]] (2006), a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century [[isolationist]]s.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[Republican Party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the [[Whig Party|Whigs]] and of both [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton]]. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's [[Declaration of Independence|Declaration]]. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] reflected a [[reactionary]] opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective [[tariff]]s), and [[imperialism]], and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the [[Democratic Party]] permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], [[Yale University|Yale]] professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected [[evolution]] in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of [[Rhode Island]] were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a liberal he took a tough [[Regulation|regulatory]] approach toward businesses and [[trust]]s, and (post-presidency) fought for social insurance for the elderly. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the [[German Empire|German]] attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and [[H.L. Mencken]]'s magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in [[Chicago]] which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought [[liberal]]s to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only [[Maine]] and [[Vermont]]. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of [[Ohio]], and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of [[Georgia]].
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were [[isolationist]]s in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the [[Korean War]].

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, [[American liberalism]] was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like [[Russell Kirk]]'s ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''[[National Review]]'', founded by [[William F. Buckley]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been [[isolationist]] the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose [[communism]]. It looked to the [[Founding Fathers]] for historical inspiration as opposed to [[John C. Calhoun|Calhoun]] and the antebellum South.

The success of the [[Civil Rights movement]] came in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying [[Florida]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all [[New Deal]] programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in [[California]], and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the [[Northeast]] who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as [[wage and price controls]], than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and [[conservative principles]] dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Communism]]. Reagan promised to cut [[welfare]] spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised [[military spending]] and created large [[federal deficit]]s that turned out working to our advantage, because at that time, deficits didn't matter. It should be known that the Republicans also [[Balanced budget|balanced]] the [[budget]] in the late 1990s.

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Reactions to Obama==
"Forty percent of Americans now self-identify as conservatives — double the amount of self-professed liberals — largely because independents are beginning to take sides." [http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/winter11/spalding.html]

Compare [[Progressive liberalism]].

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Conservative Party]] is the major partner in the governing coalition. The party's current leader, [[David Cameron]],<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref> has been [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] of the UK since May 2010.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for [[abortion]] on demand, gay [[civil partnership]], the [[Kyoto Treaty]] and to oppose [[capital punishment]] (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

[[Margaret Thatcher]] revolutionized the British conservatives much like Reagan revolutionized American conservatives. During her tenure as Prime Minister, she cut taxes, trimmed back at government waste, and exercised a strong national defense abroad (including the [[Falklands War]] of 1982).

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in [[England]] and [[Wales]] than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively [[liberal]] in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', ''[[Daily Express]]'' and ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes [[individual responsibility]]. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of [[morality]], duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Also See ==
*[[Conservative resources]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]
*[[Larry McDonald]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative humor and satire resources

2012-04-06T13:23:16Z

HMatthews:

[[File:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Hillary Clinton]] wasn't lying! [[Bosnia]] gunfire footage was recently discovered. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc VIDEO] ]]
'''Below are some [[conservative]] [["humor"]] and [["satire"]] resources:'''

'''There is no such thing as conservapedia satire because satire needs some degree of intelligence, intelligence being a virtue that members of this website are clearly lacking, including ALLMIGHTY MASTER SCHLAFY, who is about as bright as a shadow'''

== General conservative humor and [[satire]] ==

*[http://townhall.com/cartoons/ Townhall Political Cartoons]

*[http://radioactiveliberty.com/ Radioactive Liberty]

*[http://www.libnot.com/ Libnot]
[[File:Dog with a bone.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|If you think taking a bone away from a dog is hard, try getting a [[liberal]] with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] to stop thinking about [[Conservapedia]]!
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsand/4589825889/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

*[http://www.gargaro.com/polhumor.html Gargaro.com]

*[[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]

== Obese atheists and overweight atheists comedy and satire ==

*[[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]]

== Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder ==

*[[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]

*[[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]

== Conservative humorous videos ==

''see also:'' [[Humorous conservative videos]]

'''Below are some [[conservative]] humor video resources:'''

'''YouTube conservative humor videos:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/illuminatitv illuminatitv]

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/newsbusted Newsbusted]

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/RestrainedNoMore Restrained No More]

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction Macho Sauce Production]

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod shockofgod] - humor and [[satire]] concerning [[atheism]] by [[shockofgod]]

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/wazooloo Ian Juby] - creationist humor concerning [[evolution]]

=== Classic conservative humorous videos and pictures ===

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj01Sqi0zic Two Trillion Tons]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsZm6ZhDkE Obama Focus Group Parody]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NrqqK60OI Barney Frank - "Banking Queen" w/ caption]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZthqHgmK0A Rush Limbaugh does Barney Frank Impersonation]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRHMMA6Rz4 Obamaville]
[[File:Pam Iorio.JPG|right|thumbnail|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] humbly bowed to Pam Iorio, the mayor of [[Tampa]], [[Florida]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-5Fh8LQ0o VIDEO] ]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANBD2s_18o Rush Limbaugh...Parody "The Candy Man"]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7caWGfAEX_0 Rush Limbaugh: Barack Obama tax Parodies]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxXh6ZWfbDg Obama's funniest bloopers!]

'''[[Barack Obama]]'s bowing:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-5Fh8LQ0o Obama Bows to Tampa, Florida Mayor]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNGX2qN1yBQ&feature=related Barack Obama Dances For King Abdullah]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA&feature=player_embedded# Obama Bows to Japanese Emperor Akihito]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xAazr_1uXw Obama bows to the President of Communist China]

====Sharise Parviz====

The Goddaughter series:

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/RestrainedNoMore#play/uploads/7/R-woiwQEyEs The Goddaughter]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/RestrainedNoMore#play/uploads/11/FHQTWCEdRXQ The Goddaughter 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/RestrainedNoMore#play/uploads/3/JRKsJ8ZwSlI The Goddaughter 3]

Others:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5P8iY0Mho&feature=player_embedded "Mandatory Volunteerism"... Is this a Repeat of History?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KO4Z2U55oY Big $pender: Like a Kid in a Candy Store]

=== Video Satires and parodies of liberals - various sources ===

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfFX2StkACY Jimmy Carter, Killer Rabbits and UFO's]
[[File:Killer rabbit.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px||[[Jimmy Carter]] and the killer rabbit.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfFX2StkACY VIDEO]
 
 
(picture obtained [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tatisehn/2115288605/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en License agreement]) ]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4p6_G4gQpk Jimmy Carter vs. Killer Rabbit]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlY7gxqhOcE STAR TREK OBAMA-LORE PARODY]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtzEwG1dAQ PARODY: Obama Trick-or-Treat Spoof • Shanklin]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7jJI1cfEgc Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTCTZ88MLpo Rush...Oil On The Water]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U Imagine There's No Global Warming]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhenXd0yH7A The 12 Days Of Obama]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55xJnIqq9ZI 12 Days of Bailouts]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrFWYt1tjhU Obama vs the EGO-Meter]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTY_HLKfrsI 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI The 12 Days Of Global Warming]

== Obamanomics ==

*[[Essay: Obama's multi-disciplinary economic thinking|Obama's multi-disciplinary economic thinking]] - satire
[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|Is [[Barack Obama]] in over his head? You be the judge: 50 Things Every American Should Know About the U.S. economy can be found [http://www.businessinsider.com/collapse-of-the-economy-2011-5 HERE]
 
 ]]

== Humorous pictures relating to liberals ==
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2010/02/01/must-see-video-obama-bows-to-tampa-mayor/ Obama bowing to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida]
*[http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/30/1275217381674/Barack-Obama-visiting-the-006.jpg Obama taking action during the oil spill crises and removing a tar ball from a beach]
*[http://listverse.com/2010/03/31/top-10-careers-damaged-by-photographs/ Michael Dukakis tank photo]
*[http://lonelymachines.org/2009/05/05/jimmy-carter-on-gun-control/ Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit]
*[http://www.estatevaults.com/bol/gw-al-gore-fire.jpg Al Gore and global warming]

== See also ==

*[[Conservative links]] and [[Conservative resources]]

* [[Essay:Best News Sources|Conservative news websites]]

* [[Conservative video]]

* [[Conservative columnists]]

* [[Conservative blogs]]

[[Category: Conservative]]
[[Category: Humor]]
[[Category: Satire]]

Humor

2012-04-06T13:18:58Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for conservapedia's articles on [[evolution]] and creation "science"?'''

'''Humor''' is an act, statement, or other form of communication that is ludicrous or absurdly incongruous.

Everyone finds differing things funny; no two people can agree on exactly what makes something funny.

There are many kinds of humor. There are [[jokes]], which can be further broken down by kind of joke (knock-knock, one-liner, etc.); physical humor (slapstick, spit-takes); puns, limericks, and Spoonerisms; irony; and others.

== Jokes ==

A joke can be elaborate or simple. The simplest jokes consist of the "setup", usually a question, followed by the answer or "punchline". The punchline may be a pun, or it may not bear too much relation to the setup. A perfect example of this is the following joke:

<blockquote>
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? 
A: To get to the other side! 
</blockquote>

This most likely does not strike you as funny (five-year-olds seem to respond best to this one), because the punchline does not seem to have too much to do with the setup. Consider, however, the progression of this joke:

<blockquote>
Q: Why did the hippopotomus cross the road? 
A: Because it was glued to the chicken! 
</blockquote>

You can continue in this vein until you're sick of the whole thing or your audience needs a nap, whichever comes first.

Also in the simple-joke category are knock-knock jokes. These usually consist of five lines and involve a [[Pun]]. An oldie but goodie goes like this:

<blockquote>
Person 1: Knock-knock. 
Person 2: Who's there? 
1: Annapolis. 
2: Annapolis who? 
1: Annapolis a fruit! 
</blockquote>

Then there is the infamous Banana Knock-Knock Joke:

<blockquote>
Person 1: Knock-knock. 
Person 2: Who's there? 
1: Banana. 
2: Banana who? 
1: Knock-knock 
2: Who's there? 
1: Banana. 
2: Banana who? 
1: Knock-knock 
2: Who's there? 
1: Banana. 
2: Banana who? 
1: Knock-knock 
2: Who's there? 
1: Banana. 
2: Banana who? 
1: Knock-knock 
2: Who's there? 
1: Orange. 
2: Orange who? 
1: Orange you glad I didn't say 'banana'? 
</blockquote>

It is recommended that you only tell this joke once or twice in your life (and never tell it to the same person twice, unless they have very very short memories.)

== Physical Humor ==

Physical humour is humour that stems from things happening to a person and is commonly called slapstick. The most common example of physical humour the nearly-ubiquitous Object Hitting Man In Crotch. Other common examples include but are not limited to Spilling Food Or Beverage On Person, Small Dog Clinging To Toy While Being Lifted Into The Air, and the classic Slipping On Stuff.

A well known example of slapstick humor is the Three Stooges, which consists of many physical gags.

== Puns, Limericks, And Spoonerisms ==

Puns are plays on words, normally involving [[homonyms]] or similar-sounding phrases. "Annapolis a fruit!" is a perfect example of a pun.

A limerick is a short poem consisting of five lines of varying length. Generally speaking, the last line of the limerick should reprise the first part of the limerick. Most limericks are ribald in nature, but there are plenty of perfectly tame limericks.

An example:
<blockquote>
There once was a man from Nantucket 
Who kept all his cash in a bucket 
he had a daughter named Nan 
who ran off with a man 
and as for the bucket, Nan took it. 
</blockquote>

A Spoonerism is created by swapping the first letters or sounds of two words, named after [[Reverend Spooner|Rev. William Archibald Spooner]], Warden of New College, [[Oxford University|Oxford]], who had this unfortunate and often hilarious habit.

An example of a Spoonerism:

<blockquote>
A teacher, speaking to a student, says, "you've tasted two worms!" instead of 'you've wasted two terms!'.
</blockquote>

==Story Jokes==
A story joke is a relatively long joke with a punchline at the end. Many people prefer this variety of joke over other types.

An example of a story joke:

<blockquote>
A little girl went into a nursing home to see her grandma.

The grandma was sleeping.

Being bored, and having nothing else to do, the little girl began to look around the room.

She saw a bowl of peanuts.

She got off of her chair, and walked over to them.

They looked delicious.

She took one.

She ate it.

She took another one.

She ate that one, too.

And another.

And another.

When the peanuts were almost gone, the girl's grandma began to wake up.

Suddenly feeling guilty for eating her grandma's peanuts, the little girl walked up to the grandma and said,

"Grandma, do you eat these nuts?"

The grandma looked at the little girl, and smiled.

"Oh no, dear, I don't eat them. I just suck the chocolate off."

</blockquote>

== Irony and Sarcasm ==

Irony is when situations are the opposite that one would expect. There are many types of irony in [[literature]], however in humor it is often the expression of one's meaning using language that would indicate the opposite.<ref>New Oxford American Dictionary</ref> For example, "as fun as watching paint dry."

Sarcasm, is typically mean-spirited irony, which uses ''tone'' to indicate that opposite is meant, rather than a ridiculous juxtaposition.<ref>New Oxford American Dictionary</ref>Sarcasm, for example, would involve someone who dislikes, say racing, and states that NASCAR is the pinnacle of sporting excellence.

In [[drama]], humorous dramatic irony can occur when a character makes a statement, when the audience knows that the exact opposite is true. For example, remarking how relaxing an empty room is when the audience has seen a character hiding moments before.

== Satire ==
{{main|Satire}}

Satire is the use of sarcasm and Irony to mock or deride a subject.
===Political Satire===
{{main|Political Satire}}

==See Also==
*[[Anecdotes of good will misconstruing]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:Humor]]

Joke

2012-04-06T13:15:33Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for [[conservapedia]]?'''

A joke is a series of words, phrases, or occasionally actions (as in [[physical humor]]) intended to produce laughter, and not offense. Generally speaking, a joke will contain some exaggeration or absurdity which is difficult to take seriously. Many jokes rely on [[wordplay]] or "[[pun|puns]]", others on current events and still others on the preconceptions of the audience in order to invoke the desire effect.

Jokes can be differentiated from [[mockery]] in that jokes are innocent attempts at humor, while mockery includes intent to harm, ridicule, or embarrass. As such, jokes are typically good-natured, while [[mockery]] is not.

==References==
#[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke "Joke" on Dictionary.com].

[[Category:Humor]]

Young Earth Creationism

2012-04-06T13:12:22Z

HMatthews:

'''Are you looking for [[idiot]]?'''

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].

=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===

''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]

Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent.

The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.

Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:

Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]

The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.

On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>

See also:

*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

==Criticism==
===Lack of scientific acceptance===
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

===Creationist methodology===
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists]</ref>

===Theological===
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''[[a priori]]'', not because of the evidence.
* ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].''
: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be virtually no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Andrew Schlafly

2012-04-06T13:09:14Z

HMatthews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== External links ==
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|A prick]]
*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html About CLEP] The College-Level Examination Program.
*[http://hbutler0.tripod.com/semmelweissocietytv/id52.html Andrew Schlafly], Esq.

{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

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

Talk:Creation science archive 1

2012-04-06T13:04:50Z

HMatthews:

== Creation "science" ==
Yes, considering the vast majority of biologists know this to be pseudoscience, due to no evidence or "evidence" that cannot be proven using the scientific method, one cannot call this belief "science" with any degree of sensibility.

== Ideological edits are not acceptable Sysop ColinR ==

I believe that SYSOP ColinR is engaging in ideological removing of material from the [[Creation science]] article. I believe we stated in the biases at Wikipedia article that we did not want this to occur at Conservapedia.

I merely added the bolded material in the following material below for the entry which he removed:

An effort to show that scientific evidence is consistent with the account of Creation in the Bible. Creation science is not accepted by most scientists. '''However, a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God'''.[http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html] '''In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.''' [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Ummm, your edits are ideological as well (as are mine). I think you mean that ColinR's edits are based on a ideology opposed to the one that Conservapedia adopts, instead of in line with it. Anyway, I've clarified why your edit is relevant, which ColinR apparently didn't understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I must strongly disagree with the statement "This is clear evidence of the way the educational system is biased against the teaching of Christianity." which is without any foundation. The fact that religion is not taught in public schools has nothing to do with the fact that a disproportionate amount of scientists do not believe in God. Rather, it suggests that the Christian faith is sufficiently weak that it cannot survive without any extra teaching beside church/sunday school. [[User:Arctic Nation|Arctic Nation]] 17:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've removed the sentence. What I believe it meant to refer to was not the teaching of Christianity but the teaching of the creation viewpoint. I considered altering it to that, but it was really just emphasising a point that had already been made, so I figured it might as well come out.
:I'm amused by your comment about the Christian faith being weak; what does that say about evolution, that can't survive without it being taught ''without question'' in the education system? (That's a rhetorical question; I'm not expecting an answer.)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Just as my comment was sarcastic. I only meant that science (hence, evolution) should be taught in science class and the Bible in church or Sunday school. Besides, isn't the Bible generally taught without question (by comparison with other religions) too? ;) [[User:Arctic Nation|Arctic Nation]] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Now I'm not being rhetorical. Evolution is no more scientific than creation. Both are origins views of different religions (atheism and Christianity, for example). The Bible is not just "religious teaching", but a ''history'' of the world, with implications for geology, astronomy, etc. And if you are suggesting that people are not allowed (in Sunday School, etc.) to question the Bible, you are wrong (at least for many Sunday Schools, etc.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm sorry, Mr. Rayment, but creationism is not science. Creationism is a literal reading of the Bible, followed by a selective search for supporting material. There is not a single shred of scientifically acceptable evidence in support of the creationist ideas. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, while being 150 years old, is one of the most controversial and most attacked theories of all time, yet it has never been debunked. I'm going to draw a line towards particle physics for the sake of a good comparison here, so I hope you can follow me: the Standard Model of particle physics is a highly successful theory that describes the interactions between elementary particles. This theory has several flaws, such as the non-inclusion of gravity, a rather large number of free parameters and the need for the existence of an as-of-yet undiscovered particle (the Higgs boson). But despite these problems, the Standard Model is damn good science, capable of explaining almost anything quantum physical. Now, should problems arise that cannot be solved using the Standard Model, the theory will be either changed or adapted so it can, or it will be replaced by another, better theory.
::::Evolutionary theory is just the same. It is good at explaining where different species come from and how they are related. Some problems still exist, yet the moment Evolution cannot explain something it will be either adapted so it can, or it will be thrown out of the window. Remember Phlogiston: huge scientific theory, able to explain the (hypothesized) properties of combustion, proven to be wrong with a few simple experiments, and subsequently forgotten. This is how science works: something can be right, something can be wrong, and if it's right it will be retained, but if it's wrong it will be superseded. This is also the problem with creationism: it takes the a priori assumption that the Bible is always right, while science is simply about remembering that any given explanation might be wrong. [[User:Arctic Nation|Arctic Nation]] 16:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::You have made a bald assertion that creationism is not science and offered an opinion on what it is, but you have not explained why it inherently cannot be science. You are also quite wrong that there is not a shred of evidence in support of it. And you are wrong that evolution has never been debunked. Simply repeating the anti-creationist rhetoric does not make it true. Evolution is based on the a priori unfalsifiable assumption of no creator being involved, so is no more scientific than creation. See also my comments [[User_talk:AmesG/Archive 1#Creationism|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::On the contrary, Mr. Rayment, I have made it explicitly clear why creationism is not science: it has no room for error. For a creationist, the Bible is true and must be true no matter what. Science is all about corroborating ideas, hypotheses and theories (here we have that magic word, falsifiability), and discarding everything that turns out to be wrong.
::::::Now, on the need for a creator: the Theory of Evolution makes no claims regarding where life actually came from, simply because there is no scientific consensus (though it points towards abiogenesis), nor does it make any claims regarding the existence of a creator. Also, that an assumption can be explained without the need for a creator does not suddenly make that assumption unscientific. If anything, the need for a creator to explain any idea leads to the problem of proving the existence of that creator. Don't forget that you made a huge reasoning error regarding falsifiability: except in mathematics, one cannot prove a negative. In this case, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a creator.
::::::To end, I would like to ask you a simple question. The idea we're discussing here is whether creationism is science or not. Being a scientist myself, I have learned that any scientific theory, no matter how elegant, can be wrong, for the simple reason that, again except in mathematics, nothing can be proven to be 100% true. I have no problem admitting this, it's just how it is. With this, I can say that the Theory of Evolution might be wrong and one day, we might develop another, better theory. Now I ask you, Mr. Rayment: can you admit that creationism might be wrong?
::::::: You are incorrect that creationism has no room for error, so your supporting evidence for your claim fails. I have been thinking for a while about writing some answers to these kinds of claims in a convenient location that I can refer to, and I have now done so. On your claim of no room for error, see [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue?|Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue?]] and on falsifiability, see [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|Is creationism falsifiable?]].
:::::::Evolution might not make claims for no Creator, but it is based on that principle (naturalism), many evolutionists do reject a creator, and evolution was designed to explain life without invoking a creator. Sure, explaining things without a creator does not make it unscientific, but ruling a creator out of consideration, which is what I was referring to, effectively does.
:::::::Where did I make a "huge reasoning error regarding falsifiability"? I know that one cannot prove a negative; I've often said that myself.
:::::::Sure, in principle, creationism might be wrong. I don't claim infallibility on that. So what does that prove? That I'm acknowledging that there ''is'' room for error, despite your claim to the contrary?
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Science, by definition, can't accept a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon. Invoking God is a supernatural explanation. No real scientist claims that science proves God doesn't exist (though he or she may personally believe that there is no God), just like no real scientist claims that science proves God does exist. Science can say NOTHING about the supernatural. Therefore "Creation Science" is not possible. Just imagine if science were able to invoke a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena...we wouldn't get anywhere. Anytime we saw something we didn't understand, we'd just simply say "well, the mechanism is God, no point in trying to understand it any more than that." Is that what we want? {{unsigned|Scientist3135}} -- 10:19AM, 15 November 2007
:"''This is absolutely ridiculous.''": No it's not.
:"''Science, by definition, can't accept a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon.''": Then change the definition! You are correct; science doesn't accept a supernatural explanation ''by definition'', not because of any inherent problem in doing so. Science cannot ''test'' the supernatural, but there's no reason it can't "accept a supernatural explanation". [[Natural science|Science started because of a Christian worldview]], i.e. accepting a supernatural explanation, and for hundreds of years most scientists were happy to accept a supernatural explanation. What's changed? The ''definition''!
:"''No real scientist claims that science proves God doesn't exist...''": I reckon that I could find you some that claim pretty close to that.
:"''Just imagine if science were able to invoke a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena...we wouldn't get anywhere.''": That is contradicted by the fact that early science, based on a belief in the supernatural, ''did'' get somewhere.
:"''Anytime we saw something we didn't understand, we'd just simply say "well, the mechanism is God, no point in trying to understand it any more than that.''". There's two problems with that. One, that is ''not'' what happens in the cases of scientists who are prepared to accept a supernatural explanation. Two, evolution has a similar problem: evolution has said, "that organ is an evolutionary left-over with no function, there's no point in trying to understand it any more than that." This has actually happened. A creationary scientist will say, "God doesn't make useless stuff, so this organ must have a purpose. Let's find out what it is".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Creation and Science ==
Philip, you're way off base on the falsifiability issue on your user page. I am glad you concede that creationism is unfalsifiable in the basic premise. However, evolution is actually falsifiable. You have seen a number of examples offered to you as examples that would necessarily falsify evolution - the findings of a human being in the same strata as a dinosaur would blow it out of the water. Homo habilis (do you think it didn't exist?) in the same strata as homo sapiens - ditto. Evolution as a whole can in fact be proven - on the micro level, it occurs every single day in antibiotic laboratories. While creationists attempt to distinguish between micro evolution and macro evolution, the distinction is in fact facetious - both are the same, just occurring over different time scales, and one necessarily implies the other. There is significant, good research on this that shows speciation over time, as well, in the fossil record. While evolution cannot be observed - conceded :-/ - this is hardly a requirement for a scientific theory, since, in a scientifically precise manner, evolution fits the fossil record. Here is another critical distinction between creation science and evolutionary biology - evolutionary biology proceeds from a set of facts, seeking to draw a conclusion, while creation science starts with a conclusion, and looks for facts. Since evolutionary biology is necessarily predicated on a foundational set of facts, it conforms with the fossil record in all circumstances, providing a scientifically precise, consistent, and yet falsifiable explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Penultimately, evolution does not envision "goo-to-you" - it makes no claim to abiogenesis, which is what I assume you're talking about. And it is not presaged on a lack of a creator. Since evolution assumes that life is already extant, it is not in direct conflict with a religious ideal that says, "God created life." I take issue with that idea for my own reasons, but evolution is not specifically incompatible with it, and a God who creates life may be at home in the evolutionary framework. Finally, though, I take serious issue with the "examples" of creation that you leave on your user page. The Grand Canyon example is simply laughable - the Grand Canyon, actually, is proof of an old earth, not ''vice versa'', and no legitimate scientist believes to the contrary. Even the National Parks service, when you go into the Grand Canyon, talks about the old-earth, gradual creation of the Grand Canyon over millions of years, ''since it rests on firm science.'' Your "pleiosaur" is similarly laughable! You're referring to the "frilled shark," a species that was thought extinct and bears resemblance to old-world fishes (in the same way the Komodo Dragon bears resemblance to a T-Rex), that was found by a Japanese fishing trawler shortly before it died. It in no way conforms with the body structure of fossil outline of a pleiosaur. And don't get me started on the speed of light changing. Wow. I've measured it myself, with my own two hands, laser pointer, mirror et al - it's not changing. Nor has it ever, as blue shift / red shift would be plainly discernible from space-based telescopes, et al. You need to face facts, Philip. It's fine to believe in creation as a matter of faith, but as a matter of science, it's simply not tenable! And to suggest that you ''need'' science to validate your faith is frankly insulting to your faith!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:41, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:AmesG, could you please slow down, read what I've written ''carefully'', and put some paragraph breaks into your massive missive?
:Your examples of how evolution could be falsified have already been answered by me [[Conservapedia talk:Falsifiability Challenge#Why this is misguided|here]]. In a nutshell, there is no reason to think—and good reason to think otherwise—that those things would actually falsify evolution.
:Your attempt to claim that evolution is proven is nothing more than equivocation. Demonstrating that there are changes in organisms does not demonstrate that those changes are capable of introducing entirely new organs, etc. Creationists make a different distinction than the fuzzy micro-/macro-evolution one. The distinction is whether the postulated methods of evolution ''add'' genetic information or ''remove'' it. The evidence is that they ''remove'' it, not add it.
:I strongly dispute that the fossil record shows evolution. Evolution requires innumerable intermediate forms between, ''which are totally absent from the fossil record'' (except when talking about intermediates between, say, two varieties of horse), as admitted by paleontologists.
:I have added a section to [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism|my creationism page]] about the claim that [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Do creationists start with their conclusion?|creationists start with a conclusion]].
:Modern definitions of biological evolution do generally exclude abiogenesis, and the "goo-to-you" term was intended (although perhaps poorly) to refer to the postulated original slime of the first living cells, not to non-life.
:As for the Grand Canyon, claiming that the example is "laughable" is not in any way a refutation. Instead, your "answer" was laughable because it didn't actually answer the claim. And science is supposed to work on evidence, not authority, yet the remainder of your answer was an argument from authority. And incorrect, I believe, because I believe that there are scientists who believe that the Grand Canyon was formed catastrophically (albeit not from flood run-off).
:Your refutations of the plesiosaur and speed of light examples demonstrate that you didn't carefully read what I wrote, because I was not endorsing them. In fact ''creationary'' scientists have debunked both of them. And I'm pretty sure that the Japanese fishing trawler found it after it was dead, although that is irrelevant to the present discussion.
:I'm yet to stop being amazed at how non-Christians (and even liberal Christians) try to tell me what my faith is supposed to be about. I didn't suggest that I ''needed'' science to validate my faith, but faith is based on evidence, not on the absence of evidence, so finding supportive evidence is in no way insulting to faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
First, as to the argument that evolution starts with a conclusion as well - all sciences, and disciplines, start with basic assumptions as to the structure of the discipline, but not as to the facts to be studied. For example, mathematics assumes the definition of a point, and a line, which are unproveable. History assumes that the past is knowable. Science assumes that the human senses work, as you say, and that natural, consistent laws exist. These are not assumptions as to underlying facts of a question being answered, and are therefore qualifiabily different than assuming a creator. Scientists do not, necessarily, assume "no creator," either. Evolution does not, at least.
Second, you're right that the fossil record has gaps in it - after all, only about 1% of organisms that die actually leave fossils. The conditions have to be just right. But every single organism that is so fossilized leaves a record that conforms with the theory of evolution, and further, that 1% is still a ''lot'' of evidence. However, science does have to infer from facts, since all of the facts aren't around anymore. Yet the facts do all back up the theory of evolution, and in the abscence of a better theory that explains them all, it'll still hold (creation is not a better theory!).
Third, evolution is capable of creating new genetic data. There is no evidence to suggest that it does ''not''! Random mutations occur in all organisms, and the infinite recombinations of DNA suggests that a mutation that switches the coding of a few strands of DNA does create new information, a new mutation that, coupled with natural selection, may just work out. Please see the link from the "evolution" userbox if you want to read more on this subject; it's actually on of the better-documented parts of the theory, with examples like plants evolving cell walls, which were new information, obviously.
Finally, I guess I'll have to look at your challenges to the falsifiability of evolution later.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 08:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:Your understanding of falsifiability is pretty bad. For a theory to be falsifiable, ti does not have to cave to the first suggestion of contrary evidence, but it does have to cave to a fully proven example of contrary evidence. Therefore that "human/dinosaur footprint" thing is ridiculous. The "magnet" case never proves why magnetic sensitivity couldn't evolve, except for a 60-year old quote. There's a start.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 08:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Regarding creationists starting with "facts" rather than just basic assumptions, creation and evolution are really a study of ''history''. One can indeed argue that neither can be considered science because neither are subject to the normal methods of science such as observation (you can't see the past), testability (you can't test dinosaurs turning into birds), repeatability (you can't have dinosaurs turning into birds again to see if it works), etc. However, despite that, the study of the past is often referred to as science (especially forensic science), because the methods of science can be used to assist (such as testing the chemical composition of an ancient artifact). But as ''history'', one can rely on historical documents as a source of information. Of course evolutionists won't do this because they ''have'' no documents from 65 million years ago, but creationists do, so there is no reason to arbitrarily ignore such evidence simply because it is not pure "science".
::No, scientist do not necessarily assume no creator—I didn't say that they did. This is especially true for scientists who are creationists. But many scientists ''do'' assume no creator, and many argue that any such Creator is to be ignored as far as doing science is concerned—which is "assuming no creator" for the purposes of doing science.
::I didn't just say that the fossil record has gaps. I said that there are not the transitional fossils that are predicted by evolution. Darwin said that this was the strongest objection to his theory, but hoped that, in time, the fossils would be found. Now, 150 years later, and many thousands of fossils later, they are still missing. The fossils that ''do'' exist are consistent with the creation model, so even if they are ''also'' consistent with the evolution model, it is wrong to claim that they therefore support evolution.
::Your claim that evolution is the better theory is merely your opinion, not something that you have demonstrated.
::There is plenty of evidence to suggest that evolution cannot create new genetic information. First, despite ''many'' mutations being observed, ''none'' has produced new information. You remind me of the story I heard of the budding politician who asked his assistant if he was still convinced that 98% of the people would vote for him. "Absolutely", the assistant replied, "although it's odd that I keep on running into the other two percent.". If 100% of observed mutations either destroy genetic information or are neutral, it is ludicrous to claim that there is no evidence that it can't happen. Hypothesising that a random change will result in new information is just wishful thinking.
::Doing a search for "cell wall" in that evolution article reveals nothing about any evidence for new information. Where does is say that cell walls have been observed evolving?
::You criticise me by pointing out that a single example will not disprove evolution. However, you overlook two crucial points:
::* I said this myself, even putting it in bold so that it wouldn't be missed.
::* You are contradicting yourself. You proposed evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together as something that would falsify evolution, yet when I offer an (outdated) example of just that, you claim that it would take more than that!
::Sure, the magnet case didn't prove anything. Just like your claims of falsifiability don't prove anything. If that famous, respected, scientist's falsifiability proposal can be so readily dismissed, why should I accept your proposals?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::{{QuoteBox|One can indeed argue that neither can be considered science because neither are subject to the normal methods of science such as observation (you can't see the past), testability (you can't test dinosaurs turning into birds), repeatability (you can't have dinosaurs turning into birds again to see if it works), etc.}}

:::One could indeed argue that, but one would be wrong. Remind me later and I'll put something up about the mathematics of induction. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::He calls out as a parting shot before leaving the room... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sorry, but I don't have time for a detailed post right now. The short version is essentially that one can use hypotheses about the past to generate predictions about observables in the present. That gives us observation, and the predictions can be repeatedly tested, which gives us the rest. The inductive reasoning by which we go from successful predictions to support for the hypothesis is precisely the same as with a hypothesis solely regarding the 'present.' One can't consistently reject one without also rejecting the other.
:::::More later.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good, but I doubt that it's as good as it sounds. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, the transitional fossils have emerged. The dinosaur/bird connection is one of the strongest, but actually, THE strongest, is in the evolution of humanity, where scientists can trace in unbroken succession from Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Sapiens, et al. As I have said, the fossil record is sparse by means of physical necessity, but keep in mind that evolution rests atop the fossil record, as the ''best current explanation'' for the variation of species. Also, where the fossil record breaks down, DNA often can supply the gaps. DNA evidence has recently emerged making the dinosaur-bird connection even stronger, thus almost obsoleting the need for transitional fossils (that exist anyways).
Tsumetai, I trust in your ability to tackle Philip's misunderstanding of empiricism & inductive reasoning as a way of explaining the true ''scientific'' framework behind Darwin.
As for the falsifiability issue, Philip, I didn't say that your example of the footprints in the same strata was insufficient proof; if it had been real, it probably would have been sufficient proof. But you yourself concede that it was debunked! The possibility of falsification from a sample, later disproved, has no falsification power!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm intrigued that you claim that the dinosaur/bird connection is one of the strongest, because not even all evolutionists believe that one.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3385/]
:Similar applies to the human line. I seem to recall reading that ''every'' supposed "ape man" had been relegated to a side branch of the family tree. Certainly there is not the smooth sequence of transitional forms that evolution would predict.
:Your claim that evolution is the "best current explanation" is an assertion, not evidence.
:Similarities between dinosaurs and birds do ''not'' show relationship, they show ''similarity''. Similarity can also be explained by a common designer.
:We know now that the fossil footprints are not real, but the point was that at the time, the problems with them were unknown, thus they appeared to be a convincing argument (except to those who refused to be convinced, of course), yet they failed to falsify evolution. Besides, that was not the full extent of my rebuttal of the claim of falsifiability.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are certainly a few evolutionists who question the dino-bird connection, but I know of none who dispute a more general reptile-bird connection. The question under discussion in the mainstream is not whether birds descended from reptiles, but from which specific group they descended.

::My later post will clarify the falsifiability issue as well, incidentally. Short version: there's no such thing as a perfect falsification, and whether or not a given observation is taken as a sufficiently good falsification depends to some extent on context. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I agree that most evolutionists believe that birds descended from reptiles, but that was not what was being discussed. AmesG claimed that the ''dinosaur''/bird connection "is one of the strongest", which I was showing was obviously not all that strong if not even all evolutionists are convinced. And if the ''dinosaur''/bird connection is one of the strongest, what does that say about any other reptile/bird connection. Obviously the evidence is weaker.
:::Regarding falsification, I'd probably agree with you, but that is my point. If there is no such thing as a perfect falsification, how can any evolutionist claim as an absolute that evolution can be falsified?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai, you seem better equipped to deal with this question. However, I will add, Philip, that descent and relation are the same when the relationship spans more than one generation of an animal's life. Therefore the new DNA evidence of evolution is dispositive to creation science :-P-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Are you still not properly reading what I write? I didn't say anything about "descent and relation". I contrasted ''similarity'' and relation. And I can't see how "the new DNA evidence of evolution is dispositive to creation science"; perhaps you had better explain that, because it's not self-evident. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::Will probably be Friday before I have a chance to get to this, BTW. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Merge proposal ==

I disagree with merging the content of this article with [[Creation Science]]. The latter should be merged with this one. See why [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalisation of titles|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you straighten me out or capitalization? I know that proper nouns should be capitalized, but how about names of ideas, concepts, and fields of study?
:*[[Intelligent Design]]?
:*[[Theory of Evolution]]?
:*[[Peter Principle]]?
:*[[Murphy's Law]]?

:*[[Laws of motion]]
:*[[Law of gravitation]]
:*[[Laws of thermodynamics]]

:If we had a short little page that I could refer to, that would help me a lot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Until (and unless) we come to terms with the GFDL, we can't copy Wikipedia articles into Conservapedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

How many times do we have to have this discussion: there is a lovely article called [[Scientific Method]] that explains exactly what is science (falsebility and such) and what is not, no matter what your views are.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I don't know what that comment was responding to, but the [[Scientific method]] article is poorly formatted and biased. I'll have to try and remember to fix it up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should have included mores sources for the DNA thing, I'll give you that, but the paragraph about the Yucatan crater was entirely correct: a blast that releases the energy of many nuclear weapons simultaneously will cause a massive ecological crisis, there is nothing to debate over there.

I will add more sources and use better phrasing like removing, I'll remove the "abstract concept" line.

{{unsigned|Middle Man}}
:Even if I grant you that it would likely cause a large ecological crisis, that wasn't the only point of dispute. Besides, it's not as simple as that. See this quote from Jimmy Bakker of the University of Colorado Museum, talking about the meteor extinction theory:
{{QuoteBox|The arrogance of these people is simply unbelievable. They know next to nothing about how real animals evolve, live, and become extinct. But, despite their ignorance, the geochemists feel that all you have to do is crank up some fancy machine and you’ve revolutionized science. The real reasons for the dinosaur extinctions have to do with temperature and sea level changes, the spread of diseases by migration and other complex events. In effect, they’re saying this: we high-tech people have all the answers, and you paleontologists are just primitive rockhounds.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mention the dinosaurs anywhere, did I?
You mean Robbert Bakker, I looked up some info about him:
Robbert Bakker meant he did not believe the meteorite was sufficient to wipe out all dinosaurs, he argues it would have taken out most other life as well.
He believes there were enough surviving dinosaurs to repopulate, but disease and climate change delivered the final blow, but Bakker doesn't doubt the meteorite impacted and caused major destruction, he only argues it wasn't enough to kill the dinosaurs, this is possible.
In fact many of his peers share his view of a combination of disastrous events.

But the dinosaurs were not part of that particular reasoning, I only used the meteor crater to deduce the Earth was at least older than 6000 years (the deduction does not lead to an estimation of the Earth's age, it only sets a lower limit), again, I will add more sources: the magnitude of the blast expressed as 100 million megatons, and the number of Hiroshima bombs that would be equivalent to that, maybe some more stuff too.

Constructive criticism is always welcome though.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Creation Science = Alchemy? ==
I'd like to bring up the fact that "creation science" is something akin to alchemy. A man in the sky created the rocks, birds and humans and planted rocks that look like bones to test our faith. Can we really equate the belief in genies in the sky with actual fact based science? I, for one, would welcome America to join the rest of the world in pulling their heads out of the dark ages.{{unsigned|Evilbred}}

: What do you mean, the "fact that 'creation science' is something akin to alchemy"? That's not a "fact"; that's your ''opinion'', and one that you've failed to substantiate.
: God is not a "man in the sky", and didn't plant "rocks that look like bones to test our faith". If that's what you think creation science is then you have no idea what you are talking about, and therefore have no basis for dismissing it.
: The [[dark ages]] was no such thing: it was actually a time of considerable progress. But I too wish Americans pulled their heads out of the sand and stopped embracing the atheistic origins myth that is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:29, 26 November 2007 (EST)

== Addition requested ==
I just wanted to edit the second the last paragraph to something like this:
:"''Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, '''due to the fact that "Creation Science" cannot be disproved; therefor, it cannot be considered "Science."''' But it is claimed by creation scientists that this is due mainly to the world views and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence''":
{{unsigned|Zathras}}
: I've added the reason, but without making it sound like the reason is valid (it's not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Creation Scientists & Employment ==

This page is a redirect from [[Creation Scientists]]. I clicked on that wondering what sort of institutions employ what percentage of creation scientists. For instance, it's my understanding that most professional mathematicians (in the U.S.) who are not employed by colleges and universities work for the federal government. Does anyone have any information like this about creation scientists? {{unsigned|Drochld}}
: Most creation scientists are not employed as creation scientists (just as most evolutionary scientists are not employed as evolutionists), but simply as scientists in whatever field they have their expertise in. See for examples the links [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983 here], some of which will mention who the scientist concerned works (or worked) for. Does that answer your question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: What I really want to know is who employs people who would, when asked what they do at work, reply "investigate creation science". So, I would exclude all the scientists who study particular fields of science that aren't creation science, even if they are professional scientists and believe in creation. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Does anybody give that reply? About the only ones who might would be scientists working for creationist organisations, such as [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and the [[Institute for Creation Research]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I also wonder how many people are employed by places like [[Liberty University]] to study creation from a scientific perspective. [http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/biology-chemistry/index.cfm?PID=11778 Here is one example.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: It appears just from that linked page that he is employed in part to teach science, but yes, also it seems that part of his employment is to do research. But to use him as an example, the answer to your first question would be that he works for a university, and to your second question, he would likely reply that he is teaching as well as researching mosasaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== First sentence sounds bad ==

I think the first sentence should be changed. '''''Creation science''' is a systematic attempt to show that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence'': the underlined part sounds like there is an agenda in Creation science and puts Creation science in a bad light in the eyes of the uninformed. We all (?) know that [[Evolutionist]]s have an agenda, but still they tell us that "[[science]] is neutral and only looking for the truth". Maybe the first sentence should be changed to something along the lines of '''''Creation science''' is science free of [[Atheist]] and [[Evolutionist]] bias, showing that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence''. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 09:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

== Small grammatical corrections ==

In the first paragraph, the sentence "Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years." should probably have the word "old" appended to it. Slightly later, the sentence "Creation scientists also assert that the naturalistic processes cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account the various kinds of animals and plants." should include the word "for" after "account." In the sentence "Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case." "evolutionist" should be plural.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:29, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is there any way protection of this article could be removed briefly for proofreading? There are a lot of small errors, and it would be more efficient just to correct them, rather than listing them all here. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
: I've unlocked it (and not just temporarily). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:54, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

== First and Second Law of Thermodynamics ==

The following sentence strikes me as odd:

''In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe.''

Firstly, it seems out of place at the beginning of the article. I would have thought argument would come later (although I note that a string of other beliefs follow). Secondly, and more importantly, who says that the universe is eternal? I understood the current mainstream scientific view to favour the big bang. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
: I agree it's odd (though technically correct). An eternal universe used to be popular, and there are still a few advocates, but most scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, do believe that the laws of thermodynamics point to a beginning to the universe. I'd support it's removal, at least in its present form and location. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== 6000 years ==

In the first paragraph of the article the following sentence appears:

''Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
''

I edited the sentence to insert the word "Christian" before the word "advocates". This was done on the basis that I understood the 6000 year figure to be peculiar to Christians. It was pointed out to me by another editor (who reverted the edit) that there are many advocates of creation science other than Christians ones. He mentioned Muslims (amongst others), so I had a quick look and found the following on [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8300_islamic_scientific_creationism_12_30_1899.asp this page].

''There is considerable room for interpretation within Islam as to the date of the Creation, since there are no explicit statements about it in the Qur'an as there are in the Bible. Other aspects of the Qur'an afford room for interpretation as well. In one place in the Qur'an, a single day is said to correspond to 1000 years, yet in another verse, a day is said to correspond to a period of 50 000 years (Edis 1994). Thus geological time scales do not disturb the Muslim conception of creation.''

It seems to me that the introduction might be rewritten to make some distinction between the religions prior to asserting that "most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old". --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

: I think the logic behind this is that the term "creation science" already implies Christianity. Other religions' creation stories don't really fit into this category. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 19:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::Erm, Judaism? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm not too fussed about this one either way. Although Muslims and Jews are, by definition, ''creationists'', very few of them have really done anything with creation ''science''. As DRamon says, "creation science" already implies Christianity. However, although that's true as a generalisation, there are exceptions, and so perhaps the qualifier that Horace inserted is valid.
::: As for Horace's edit comment "''Science, to be science, must be free of bias''", this ''should be'' the case, but often ''isn't'' the case, hence the phrasing that was there before his edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Philip, agree with you in relation to the bias issue. I think that there was a further problem with the wording as it existed prior to my edit however. That is, it was essentially a statement that creation science, in contrast to evolutionary science, is free of bias ''because'' it is creation science. It seems to me that it is the ''way'' you do it, not the area of study, that determines whether there is bias. You could carry out creation research ''or'' evolution research in a biased manner. It just depends on how you carry out the work.

:::: I know people have strong views on these topics. But in writing encyclopedic articles we should not let our own biases lead us into editorializing in this manner. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'm not ''really'' going to disagree with that, but it's a ''little'' misleading, in that when considering the cause of something, atheists are biased because they ''a priori'' rule out one possibility (the supernatural), whereas creationists are free to consider either natural or supernatural causes, because they have not ''a priori'' ruled out one of the two possibilities. So ''in that sense'' at least, creationism is ''not'' biased! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Advanced Scientific Knowledge==

While I don't disagree that many Creation Scientists believe the Bible contains such knowledge, AiG and CMI may not be the best examples to cite. Both of them include this claim on their list of arguments Creationists shouldn't use, arguing that we should read the Bible as it would have been understood in the author's time. Are there other organizations that could be cited instead? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:50, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

==Christianity and science==

Cut from intro:
:In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

True but unrelated. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Deceit

2012-04-06T12:58:32Z

HMatthews:

'''Deceit''' is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another.<ref>In law, deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood. In tort law, if someone does justifiably rely on the deceit to his detriment, then he has a cause of action for recovery of his injury.</ref> See also [[Self-deception]].

[[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]] teach that deceit is morally wrong,<ref>For example, the [[Old Testament]] says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."[http://biblescripture.net/Commandments.html]</ref> but [[public schools]] do not {{Citation needed}}

Deceit helps promote various [[belief system]]s with the public, as illustrated by the examples below. Nearly all of these examples consist of [[deceit]] that was [[embraced deceit|embraced]] by many people in order to advance an [[ideological]] goal. Most prominent modern examples are of [[liberal]]s hoping to mislead the public through [[propaganda]] {{Citation needed}}

'''Embraced deceit''' is [[deceit]] that is knowingly allowed, defended or even promoted for ideological purposes. Not only did the perpetrators of the [[deceit]] promote it, but their allies were complicit also.
'''Embraced deceit''' is common.

==Examples==

#For over 50 years many [[liberals]] denied that [[Julius Rosenberg]] had spied for the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Then, in September 2008, a co-conspirator finally admitted the truth in "Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin</ref>
#In 1997 the National Coalition of Abortion Providers' executive director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted, "I lied through my teeth" about the facts in order to defeat a ban on [[partial birth abortion]].<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2086/</ref>
#Gun control advocate [[Michael Bellesiles]] wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''[[The New York Times]]'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the [[Second Amendment]]'s death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History at [[Emory University]] in Atlanta when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>
#The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent [[missing link]] taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. [[Evolution]]ists declared the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name, ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a [[medieval]] skull combined with a lower jaw from an [[orangutan]] and teeth from a [[chimpanzee]], which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> Yet promoters of evolution perpetrated this fraud for decades, in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>
#[[Alger Hiss]] was a [[communist]] spy who worked at high levels in the U.S. government. He was convicted of two counts of perjury relating to his denials of his [[treason]]. His verdict was upheld at the [[Court of Appeals]] and the [[Supreme Court]]. Hiss was sentenced to five years on Jan. 25 and served 44 months in Lewisburg Federal Prison before being released in November 1954. Yet he continued to claim he was innocent afterwards. Documents released from [[Soviet]] files after the communist Soviet Union collapsed proved that Hiss had been a spy, and the 1997 [[Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy]] concluded that he was a spy in its report. <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa6.html Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Appendix A 6. The Experience of The Bomb]</ref>
#American Vice President [[Joe Biden]] is listed on famousplagiarists.com for his widely publicized copying from British liberal [[Neil Kinnock]] and then pawning it off as his own, and then initially denying he had done anything wrong. The resultant exposure of his unacknowledged appropriation of Kinnock's work forced Biden out of the 1988 presidential race,<ref>http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm</ref> but [[liberals]] have continued to support him as a U.S. Senator and do not seem to mind his prior deceit one bit.
#[[Liberals]] popularized the [[Scopes trial]] with the 1955 play [[Inherit the Wind]], which is often taught in schools, and the 1960 Hollywood motion picture by the same name. Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm [[Christianity]], misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie. As recently as April 17, 2007, the ''[[Village Voice]]'' described the play as though it were factually true,<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0716,feingold,76394,11.html</ref> thereby misleading all of its readers.
#''[[Doe v. Bolton]]''<ref>410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).</ref> was the decision in 1973 by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] which created [[abortion]] on demand based on the theory that Ms. "Doe" wanted an abortion for her health. Sandra Cano was the "Doe" of ''Doe v. Bolton'', and she later proved in sworn testimony that at "NO TIME did I ever have an abortion. I did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion."<ref>http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4393</ref> She filed a brief with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2006 asserting that "fraud was perpetrated on the Court" in the original ''Doe v. Bolton'' case brought in her name. In April 2007, the Supreme Court cited approvingly her brief for the general principle that abortion might harm the women who have them.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380</ref>
#[[Democrat]] Durham District Attorney [[Mike Nifong]] admitted that there was "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he charged them with in 2006.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-26-nifong-court_N.htm?csp=34</ref> A three-member panel of a state commission "ruled that Nifong willfully lied during his prosecution of the three lacrosse players."<ref>http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/661674.html</ref> "The committee ruled in June [2007] that Nifong knowingly withheld DNA evidence that was beneficial to the three charged in the case. ... The state attorney general later exonerated the players and declared the three men innocent of all charges."<ref>''Id.''</ref> But 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the [[liberal]] Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an ad hurtful to the innocent students, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref> Ultimately "Nifong was sentenced ... to a single day in jail, having been held in criminal contempt of court for lying to a judge during his pursuit of rape charges against the three falsely accused lacrosse players."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RCITJ00&show_article=1</ref>
#In relation to the [[theory of evolution]] evolutionist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote in May of 2000 the following: "[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]]'s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin ... in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution .... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again."<ref>http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm</ref> The [[New York Times]] reported that "drawings were reproduced in textbook after textbook for more than a century" which "biologists discovered ... were fraudulent" but "some textbooks still contain them."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/science/08EVOL.html?ex=1187064000&en=c9bdc4e4fa58256b&ei=5070</ref> Known as the [[Haeckel drawings]], these fake drawings remained in textbooks for more than 100 years until exposed as fake by the [[New York Times]] in 2001. As of Aug. 12, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] continued to present these drawings as generally true while omitting any reference to the [[New York Times]] exposing of the fraud.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing</ref>
# Several Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia have been scrutinized for deceitful behavior revealed from [[Climategate]]. If it is true that the CRU scientists deliberately falsified climate science data, and then then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding, then it is deceit.
#[[Adolf Hitler]] described the "Big Lie" technique in Mein Kampf and used it many times to justify invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries. He blamed Jews for the big lie, and for starting World War II, but was unconvincing.
#Extremist, hyper-liberal regimes such as the [[Soviet Union]] under [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Communist]] [[China]], and [[North Korea]] elevate deceit into an instrument of political statecraft. Systematic [[liberal lies]] are the basic currency of daily governance, and [[propaganda]] delivered through state organs is as essential to these regimes as a [[free press]] to the [[United States]].
#[[Jayson Blair]], disgraced former ''[[New York Times]]'' reporter, was forced to resign after it was discovered he had plagiarized and fabricated large amounts of material for several stories
#[[Democratic]] Presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] repeatedly pledged to close the [[Guantanamo]] Detention facility housing [[terrorist]]s in order to "regain America's moral stature in the world." <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0 60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay]</ref> As president, the ''Washington Post'' reported in June 2009 Obama was considering an [[Executive Order]] to hold Guantanamo detainees indefinitely. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html ''White House Weighs Order on Detention Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely''], [[Washington Post]], June 27, 2009.</ref>
#In July 2009, Al Gore was interviewed by a reporter from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. During the interview, he was asked about a 2007 British court ruling regarding his "[[An Inconvenient Truth]]" film being shown in public schools. The question was specifically about nine significant scientific errors in the film that were noted by the judge. Gore did not address the issue of the errors, simply stating, "[T]he ruling was in my favour."<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2624723.htm</ref> However, the judge had unequivocally stated in 2007 after the ruling, "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm</ref>
#In the earliest example of deceit, the serpent in the [[Garden of Eden]] persuaded [[Eve]] to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, claiming it would make her like [[God]]. In truth, it caused the [[fall of man]], exiling [[Adam and Eve]] from [[Eden]]. See John 8:44.

==Quotes==

[[George Orwell]] wrote:
*{{orwell-politics-lies}}
*"Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore." [http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/fonda.html]

==Biblical References==
[[Book of Psalms|Psalm]] 119:118
<blockquote>
Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.
</blockquote>
Psalm 5:6
<blockquote>
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
</blockquote>
Proverbs 26:24
<blockquote>He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him</blockquote>
Job 27:4
<blockquote>
My lips will not speak wickedness, and my tongue will utter no deceit.
</blockquote>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22725 People of Deceit], by [[Michael Reagan]], ''Human Events'', 10/05/2007.
*''People of the Lie'', by psychiatrist [[M. Scott Peck]]

==See Also==
*[[Abortion deceit]]
*[[Flattery]]
*[[Fraud]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal deceit|Examples of '''liberal deceit''' from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[Intellectual dishonesty]]
*Michael Reagan, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2007/10/05/people_of_deceit People of Deceit]
*[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

[[category:political Terms]]

Liberals and friendship

2012-04-06T12:56:13Z

HMatthews:

'''Liberals''' often make approval of [[liberal]] values a condition of [[friendship]] {{Citation needed}}. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal values]] {{Citation needed}}. For example, Nobel laureate [[Ronald Coase]] described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his [[conservative]] economic positions.<ref>Thomas W. Hazlett. [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30115.html "Looking For Results"]. ''Reason'' January 1997. </ref>

Princeton University professor Robert George observed,
:"If [a conservative] kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he's likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He's going to face pressure to conform or he'll be the victim of discrimination. It's a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad."<ref name="badger">Darryn Beckstrom, [http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/01/confessions_of_a_con.php "Confessions of a conservative grad student"]. The Badger Herald, September 1, 2005.</ref>

A '''liberal friendship''' can occur wherever [[liberals]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system {{Citation needed}}. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace. Until exposed and criticized by this entry {{Citation needed}}, there was even a website entitled "Ostracize a Republican," which justified the practice by comparing Republicans to Nazis using a parody of the famous [[Martin Niemoeller|"I did not speak up" speech]].<ref>http://ostracizearepublican.org/ (no longer active after being exposed and criticized here).</ref>

David Brooks of the [[New York Times]] published advice from prominent professors which said that conservative graduate students in humanities and social sciences are better off if they keep their conservative views in the closet. Brooks wrote:<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E5DB133DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63</ref>

:"The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: 'You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet.'"

Darryn Beckstrom, a graduate student at [[liberal]] [[University of Wisconsin]], confirmed it:<ref name="badger" />

:Mr. George is right. It is indeed harder to hide your political ideology. Not because of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 button on the ol’ backpack, but because your fellow graduate students — and future colleagues — expect you to be liberal. It’s as if these students have gone through their entire educational careers using the liberals’ edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the definition for “intelligent” specifically forbids any association with conservativism.

:I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror. (Disclosure: This column was written with a notebook purchased from the Texas-based, Dubya-supporting, capitalistic leviathan Dell Corporation.)

:Though my monologue most likely fell on deaf ears, a familiar response came afterward: “Well, at least you aren’t one of those social conservatives, are you?” Indeed I am.

Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy described this phenomenon, without endorsing it, in reference to [[conservative]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]: "among professional blacks, especially lawyers, he is widely ostracized."<ref>http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010657</ref>

Renowned [[conservative]] physicist [[Edward Teller]] described how [[liberals]] terminated their friendship with him and his wife for political reasons. "By old friends we were practically ostracized," he said, adding that his wife "was very badly hurt" and even fell ill from it.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/obituaries/10TELL.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=527a0430768a87c7&ex=1378612800&partner=USERLAND</ref>

[[Michael Medved]] observed that in [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]], "There are no movies in the recent past that send overt unapologetic conservative messages. Why? Because anybody who attempted to do that would be criticized [and] ostracized socially, if not commercially, in the Hollywood community."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148108,00.html</ref>

Attorney David Bernstein described his experience at the very [[liberal]] [[Yale]] law school:<ref>http://volokh.com/posts/1130872867.shtml</ref>

:[A] classmate of mine told me ... that a significant number of my Yale classmates shunned me [first semester] because of "what you said in [first semester] Contracts class." I responded that I don't remember saying anything all that controversial--after all, we didn't discuss abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, or any other especially hot button issues in Contracts class, and my views on such issues were not especially out of the mainstream at Yale, anyway. My classmate responded, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "yes, but you kept saying that contracts should be enforced."

[[Image:David Clarke.jpg|right|thumb|Sheriff David Clarke]]
African American sheriff David Clarke explains how [[liberals]] ostracize black [[conservatives]]:<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_heralds.html</ref>

:Clarke argues — plausibly — that President Bush should give him and other black conservatives a platform to boost their credibility and exposure. Black ministers call him furtively to express support but explain that they can't do so publicly. "People are watching what will happen to me; they want assurance that they can survive. It's going to require individuals to develop courage to buck the plantation politics, because it's not fun to be ostracized by one's own people."

One college student in relatively neutral [[Pennsylvania]] observed:<ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/teenscene/s_555216.html</ref>

:I think a lot of young Republicans are afraid of being ostracized by fellow classmates and professors if they are open about their political opinions, since most people regard the majority of college students and professors as being liberal.

In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. These liberals were friends with Reagan although they knew he was a conservative. On the other hand, there have also been a few cases of [[liberals]] not requiring acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Tip O'Neill]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] were both friends of [[Ronald Reagan]]. Reagan was friends with these liberals although he knew they were liberals.

Besides the loss of a friendship if you display disapproval of the liberal [[belief]] system {{Citation needed}}, if a liberal knows you are a well known [[conservative]] , they may wish you bad luck {{Citation needed}}. However, if you change by discounting and betraying your past conservative relationships/principles/friends, they would embrace and reward you with '''liberal friendship'''. e.g. Press Secretary [[Scott McClellan]] of the Bush administration was hated by liberals just for working in the administration. After leaving his position and writing a book publicly criticizing President Bush, the typical left leaning media sources, being they don't revere concepts like honor and loyalty and see disloyalty and backbiting as virtues, actually defended him.<ref>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/ , Salon.com In Defese Of Scott McClellan, May 29, 2008</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Liberal bias in grading]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Professor values]]

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Liberal denial

2012-04-06T12:52:18Z

HMatthews:

[[Image:Obama messiah.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Cover of ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' Magazine, one of many published "halo-effect" photos of Barack Obama; the emphasis is on the claims that he is a "messiah," and is an example of liberal deification of a government official in accordance with line #6.]]
'''Liberal denial''' is the tendency of [[liberals]] to conceal, [[denial|deny]] or [[Censorship|censor]] the truth for ideological reasons {{Citation needed}}. A list of the top ''common'' instances of [[liberal denial]] are the following:

# Liberals deny that human intelligence inevitably and demonstrably declines from generation to generation, and that if there were another 100 generations into the future the people would not be able to understand simple concepts. {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny the very real existence of [[fetal pain]] during [[abortion]].
# Liberals deny the very real existence of [[Hell]]. [[Jesus]] talked about Hell more than Heaven.
# Liberals deny how they censor the [[Bible]] from their daily activities, and encourage the censorship for others too {{Citation needed}}.
# Liberals deny that [[Fidel Castro]], who has not been seen in public since his intestinal surgery 3.5 years ago, is likely to be deceased {{Citation needed}}.
# Liberals deny the [[Nobel Prize]] is an award given by liberals to other liberals, and sometimes even granted in an awkward manner designed to punish a critic of liberal falsehoods.<ref>E.g., the granting of the Nobel Prize to an understudy of [[Fred Hoyle]] to punish him.</ref>
# Liberals deny how they deify government officials, similar to how communists deified Stalin and Lenin and still deify Castro {{Citation needed}} .<ref>See, e.g., liberal adulation of [[Ted Kennedy]] despite his paucity of achievements.</ref>
# Liberals deny how fellow travelers engage in [[deceit]], or at least refuse to admit it {{Citation needed}}.
# Liberals deny they are [[liberal]], and that most of the media are [[liberal]] {{Citation needed}}.
# Liberals deny that [[Hollywood values]], [[professor values]] and general [[liberal]] values have consequences for those who believe in them, and also for innocent victims {{Citation needed}}.
# Liberals deny that they have censored [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>A [[public school]] student who once "tape recorded a teacher making religious remarks to his students" to complain about it then later objected to a textbook explaining how prayer is censored from [[public school]] schools by court decisions. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4614012]</ref>
# Liberals deny that a woman significantly reduces her risk of [[breast cancer]] by having children rather than [[abortions]] {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that about half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and those STDs cause infertility<ref>"Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing -- 40 percent had an STD."[http://www.tulsaworld.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_C12_hUShe15125]</ref>
# Liberals deny that the strident promoters of [[evolution]] generally have weaker credentials than advocates of [[intelligent design]]<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]]</ref> The reference isn't good enough, so {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that College faculties at nearly every American school are completely dominated by [[liberals]], and have virtually no [[conservatives]] {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that [[Homosexuality]] shortens lifespan for a wide variety of reasons {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that reducing the number of guns, which are primarily defensive weapons, results in an increase in crime {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that the war in [[Iraq]] was needed and also deny that the surge has worked {{Citation needed}}
# Liberals deny that [[Hitler]] and the [[Nazi]] party were in fact [[Liberals]] (anti-Semitism is a well-documented characteristic of [[Liberal Christianity]] as is the [[PETA]]-like Green wing of the Third Reich<ref> [http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html Fascist Ecology:
The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents]</ref>) reference isn't good enough, so {{Citation needed}}

More generally, liberals also deny:

# That [[Obama]] ran the dirtiest campaign since [[Lyndon Johnson]] {{Citation needed}}
# That more than 80% of child molesters are [[pornography]] addicts {{Citation needed}}
# That people like [[young mass murderers]] who take [[atheistic]] beliefs to their logical conclusions are not "crazy" or "insane", but are true believers {{Citation needed}}.
# That [[young mass murderers]] fit the profile of [[public school]]-trained [[atheism]] {{Citation needed}}
# That the intellectual justification for [[Hitler]]'s attempt to build a master Aryan race was the [[theory of evolution]] {{Citation needed}}
# That [[feminists]] censor discussion about differences between men and women, and boys and girls. {{Citation needed}}
# That [[Lawrence Summers]] was fired as President of [[Harvard]] for making a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] suggestion about women and [[math]] aptitude {{Citation needed}}
# That [[Socialized_medicine|state run health care]] has lead to Islamic terrorism in Britain, and would do so in the US. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ ''FOX News analyzes the new terror in state healthcare.''</ref>
# That obesity is a bigger problem than hunger in the Western world {{Citation needed}}
# That a school having virtually no [[conservative]] teachers and many [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] is a [[liberal]] school {{Citation needed}}
# That [[liberals]] attempt to intimidate and ostracize [[conservatives]], particularly in school environments and some occupations.<ref>See [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
# That [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] {{Citation needed}}
# That girls and women in sports have debilitating ACL knee injuries at 3-4 times the rate of men,<ref>''Compare'' [http://www.universityhealthmatters.com/article.php?artid=50] (with an explanation of why there is a big difference) ''with'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/health/18knee.html?ex=1204088400&en=3a5abfaa6104ac63&ei=5070&emc=eta1 New York Times] (downplaying the difference and pretending that no one knows why). The New York Times denies overwhelming evidence, including the following:
:"Female athletes, particularly basketball players, are far more likely than their male counterparts to suffer ACL [Anterior Cruciate Ligament] injuries." Stephen Hargis, "Girls have more torn ACLs," Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), D1 (Feb. 4, 2005). According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the risk of women tearing their ACL is 1 in 100. This number drops significantly to only 1 in 500 for men. See Nikki Usher, "Knee injury takes toll on girls playing soccer five times more likely than males to suffer a torn ACL," Philadelphia Inquirer, A01 (Nov. 29, 2004). "Compared with guys, female athletes run an eight-times-greater risk of tearing the ACL, a fibrous band that connects the shinbone (tibia) to the thighbone (femur). Basketball, soccer and other sports that require cutting moves or jump shots can put athletes at risk." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls face higher knee injury risk," USA Today, 15B (Aug. 24, 2004). Timothy Hewett, PhD, the lead researcher on a definitive study at the Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center at the University of Cincinnati, says this is "close to a billion-dollar problem in girls and women in the USA. ... Even after girls have recovered from the acute injury, the changes in the joint may set the stage for osteoarthritis of the knee ...." ''Id.'' That obvious suspicion was quickly confirmed: a study subsequently published in Arthritis & Rheumatism demonstrated that "more than half of ... 103 soccer players, who were ages 14 to 28 at the time of the ACL injury, suffered osteoarthritis of the knee at the time of the study -- about 12 years later." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls' knee injuries have later consequences," USA Today, 9D (Oct. 7, 2004). "Many of the women, who were about 31 by that time, also said they had pain or some other disability that made it hard to conduct daily activities." ''Id.''</ref> and are vulnerable to other injuries<ref>"Amber Scull ruptured her spleen after she was tackled during a practice drill at Nature Coast Tech in Brooksville 2 1/2 months ago. Had she [not] arrived at the hospital 30 minutes later, doctors told her mother, she might have died." [http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/06/news_pf/Sports/Girls_face_dangers_on.shtml]</ref>
# That the numerous premature deaths of [[Hollywood]] stars are the result of [[Hollywood values]]<ref>Liberal [[Wikipedia]] lists numerous [[actor]]s who died of drug overdoses, but will not acknowledge the role played by [[Hollywood values]], for which Wikipedia does not even have an entry. That's because there's no such thing as hollywood values [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths]</ref>
# That [[homeschoolers]] often do better than those who attend [[public school]] {{Citation needed}}
# That [[culture]] affects [[politics]], and people's views and lifestyles {{Citation needed}}
# That successful [[democracy]], both historically and logically, is the result of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity]]<ref>[http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/cultural_apologetics/snyder-democracy1.html Calvinism and the Success of Liberal Democracy, by John Snyder]</ref>
# That [[Ronald Reagan]]'s public exhortation, "[[Mikhail Gorbachev|Mr. Gorbachev]], tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old [[Berlin Wall]] later be torn down {{Citation needed}}
# That [[gun control]] increases [[crime]] {{Citation needed}}
# That reducing [[tax rates]] stimulates the [[economy]] {{Citation needed}}
# That choosing [[abortion]] over childbirth increases the risk of [[breast cancer]] {{Citation needed}}
# That the [[mainstream media]] is [[bias]]ed {{Citation needed}}
# That privately-run [[transport]] is more efficient than government-run transport {{Citation needed}}
# That [[universal health care]] is inferior medical care {{Citation needed}}
# That [[Labor union|union]]s interfere with [[employment]] opportunities {{Citation needed}}
# That [[liberal]] leaders engage in shocking wrongdoing, [[Liberal hypocrisy|hypocrisy]], and abuse of power<ref>See, e.g., leading [[liberal]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] and how fellow [[liberals]] downplayed or were silent about his misconduct.</ref>
# That ideas do matter, and can cause great harm, including liberal falsehoods {{Citation needed}}
# That [[Islam]]ic extremism is a threat to the [[Western civilization]]<ref>Leftist [[Sam Harris]] admitted and complained about this liberal denial [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/REPOSITORY/610090301/1028/OPINION02 here].</ref>
# That banning [[same-sex marriage]] is analogous to banning [[polygamy]] {{Citation needed}}
# That aggressive interrogation is often the only way to obtain answers from [[terrorists]] {{Citation needed}}
# That the [[liberal]] ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters {{Citation needed}}
# That free trade strengthens global democracies {{Citation needed}}
# That a child in a mother's womb has rights established by the [[Constitution]] {{Citation needed}}
# That a [[vote]] for (yea) or a vote against (nea) is an absolute position
# That you can be held accountable for the statements uttered
# That climate forecasts 50 years from now are as inaccurate as 15 days from now {{Citation needed}}
# That politicians that proclaim 'Change' actually do not break with policies of the past {{Citation needed}}
# That removing [[Saddam Hussein]] from power was a good thing. {{Citation needed}}
# That eating [[meat]] and [[dairy]] is important for physical and mental health. {{Citation needed}}
# That [[marijuana]] use has lasting psychological effects.
# That illegal immigrants contribute to crime and poverty in the towns and cities they occupy.
# That English will cease being the language of the United States in 20 years unless it is protected as the [[official language]] (and that this would be a loss if it happened). {{Citation needed}}
# That President Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina.
# That President Clinton was responsible for Rwanda inaction.{{Citation needed}}
# That the Democratic party discriminates against African-Americans. {{Citation needed}}
# That restricting free speech by the [[Fairness Doctrine]] is actually not fair nor democratic.
# That we can drill oil our way out of high gas prices. {{Citation needed}}
# That we can't replace our dependence on oil with green technologies, when in fact we need both oil and green technologies to solve our energy crisis. {{Citation needed}}
# That opposing same-sex [[marriage]] is justified and point to decriminalized interracial marriage bans as proof. {{Citation needed}}
# That they are [[intolerant]] of opposing viewpoints (completely unlike this website) and then try to stifle further discussion. {{Citation needed}}
# That [[socialism]] and liberalism have the same political agenda. {{Citation needed}}
# That [[God]] should have a place in government {{Citation needed}}
# That modern drilling methods result in minimal environmental impact, even if they were implemented in uninhabited lands such as the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] {{Citation needed}}
# That companies like [[Exxon]] should pay billions of dollars in damages to the general public, ''in addition'' to the money they spend to clean up industrial accidents and to recompense those directly affected
# That [[selective logging]] keeps forests healthier by reducing the risk of wildfire {{Citation needed}}
# That high food prices are not caused by [[ethanol]] production, but rather by the million acres of crop- and pastureland that have been taken out of production in the interest of wildlife conservation. {{Citation needed}}
# That the life of a human is more important than the life of an animal or plant.
# That modern technology can make [[coal]] clean {{Citation needed}}
# That a fence is the most effective and ultimately, the most peaceful way to protect our large border from illegal immigrants trying to get in {{Citation needed}}
# That socially dangerous people exhibit a well-documented pattern of reading habits {{Citation needed}}
# That [[heavy metal]] music is generally anti-Christian and promotes themes such as drugs, sex and [[Satan]] worship {{Citation needed}}
# The existence of God and Jesus, our Lord and Savior.
# That they make sweeping generalizations about Conservatives (completely unlike this website) {{Citation needed}}
# That Wikipedia has a systematic bias. {{Citation needed}}
Often [[liberal]]s refuse to admit that they are [[liberal]]s, in the hope of appearing more reasonable. [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to admit in a presidential debate in 2007 that she is a [[liberal]]. Similarly, [[Michael Dukakis]] refused for a while to admit that he was a [[liberal]] during the 1988 presidential campaign. Only out of desperation did Dukakis admit that he was a [[liberal]], and even then he admitted only that was a liberal like President [[Harry Truman]], who served 40 years earlier.

Liberals like to bash President Bush as a war monger and cite [[President Clinton]] for his eight years of peace and prosperity. Liberals will deny record low unemployment, more people owning their homes and President Bush going after [[terrorists]] while protecting Americans from further attacks. Liberals will selectively forget that during Clinton's term: the [[Rwanda]] massacre occurred, the bombing of the USS Cole, the war in the [[Balkans]], the two US embassies bombed in [[Africa]], the Kobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the [[Somalia]] conflict, the missile strike against [[Afghanistan]] and the bombing campaign against Iraq. Also, [[liberals]] will deny that Clinton's economic policy ignored a series of high profile companies that eventually collapsed due to fraud: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and Qwest.

As part of their denial, liberals often use the word "denial" pejoratively against conservatives. Alleging that conservatives are [[racist]] and reject [[science]], they use terms like "[[global warming]] deniers" and "[[climate change]] deniers" in an attempt to link conservative viewpoints with [[Holocaust denial]], [[Nazism]], [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]], and [[pseudoscience]].

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

== See also ==

*[[ACLU]]
*[[Longest liberal denials]]
{{liberalism}}
[[category:Liberal Traits]]

Christopher Hitchens

2012-04-06T12:43:10Z

HMatthews:

[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|Christopher Hitchens]]
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (April 13, 1949 - December 15, 2011) was a [[Journalism|journalist]], [[author]] and literary critic. Hitchens received degrees in [[philosophy]], [[politics]] and [[economics]] from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper. He emigrated to the [[United States of America|United States]] in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harper's'', ''Vanity Fair'' and [[Nation (magazine)|''The Nation'']]. He was an avowed [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[Antitheism|antitheist]]. Hitchens has a younger brother, [[Peter Hitchens]], who is also a journalist, author and critic. Mr. Hitchens was one of the more prominent spokesperson for the [[New Atheism]] movement.

Christopher Hitchens was a member of the International Socialists and an active [[Trotskyist]] during his youth. Before his death he claimed to be "on the same side as the [[Neoconservatism|neo-conservatives]]," but does not consider himself a [[conservative]]. He supported [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush's]] foreign policy, but has a negative attitude towards Bush's support of [[intelligent design]]. Hitchens made himself unpopular, even among fellow atheists for his support of the Iraq War, which was motivated by his hatred of religion - in his own words, he supported the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|Iraq War]] simply because [[Iraq|Iraqis]] were [[Islam|Muslim]], which has been compared to endorsement of racially-motivated [[genocide]].

He was a harsh critic of [[Ronald Reagan]], and considered [[Henry Kissinger]] a [[war criminal]]. Mr. Hitchens was also known for having a history of heavy drinking.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html</ref>

Christopher Hitchens was being treated for esophageal cancer caused by [[alcoholism|drinking]] and [[smoking]] up until his death on December 15, 2011.<ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/video-extended-interview-hitchens-on-cancer-and-atheism/</ref>

== Hitchens on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

At the end of a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[William Lane Craig]] vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU VIDEO] Around an hour and 54 minutes into the aforementioned video, the first audience member to ask a question asked Christopher Hitchens twice whether it is "good that the Bible prohibits humans from having sex with animals." Hitchens answered the question essentially by saying the Bible is not needed to stop humans from doing that, since we are genetically inclined against it and societies that do engage in such harmful behavior tend to die out, citing the example of cannibalistic societies that get kuru.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate]</ref> Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: [[Atheism and morality]]).<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate] </ref>

==Opposition to Islam and Support of the War on Terror==

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against [[Islam]] when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a [[fatwa]] against his personal friend [[Salman Rushdie]]. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

==Insults toward Jerry Falwell==
In a TV interview with Hannity and Colmes a day after [[Jerry Falwell]]'s death, Christopher Hitchens expressed his anger over Falwell's legacy, calling the media coverage of his death uniform in its "stupidity" and calling Falwell himself a "vulgar fraud and crook"<ref name=FAL>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4</ref>. Hitchens went on to state such comments as "we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred of others and prejudice", "that it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to", "the evil he did will live after him", and "and I think his death is a deliverance" <ref name=FAL/>. [[Hannity]] said that such comments were "crude", "thoughtless", "mean", and "hateful."

==Select bibliography ==
*''Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten'' (Cassell, 1976)
*''Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989)
*''Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990)
*''The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'' (Verso, 1995)
*''Prepared for the Worst'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''For the Sake of Argument: Essays & Minority Reports'' (Verso, 1993)
*''No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family'' (Verso, 2000)
*''God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'' - outside the US, published with the alternate subtitle ''The Case Against Religion'' (Atlantic, 2007)

Some other titles include: “Letters to a Young Contrarian,” “The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001)” and his memoir, “Hitch-22. [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-a-reading-list.html#ixzz1gi8RBrKh]

<blockquote>
“Stranger in a Strange Land”: In this piece that The Atlantic published two months after the attacks of 9/11, Hitchens summed up his break from the establishment left over the attacks and the war on terror that was then only beginning. [[Ibidem]]
</blockquote>

==Death==
Christopher Hitchens died on December 15, 2011. The media has reported that the cause of his death was pneumonia, a complication of oesophageal cancer.<ref>Minzesheimer, Bob. "Writer Christopher Hitchens dies at age 62." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-16/obit-hitchens/51999910/1</ref> The cancer was likely caused by his heavy drinking and smoking.

===Atheism and Hitchens' cancer===
The possiblity that Hitchens' unfortunate death from cancer could have been directly or indirectly influenced by his [[atheism]] remains open. In the indirect sense, it is known that the atheistic philosophy of the objective meaninglessness of life correlates with vices and mental unwellness. Atheists and secular Americans are known to have higher rates of drug abuse{{Citation needed}}(which in a broad sense could include smoking and drinking as well), and regular churchgoers are known to have much lower rates of mental illness and depression {{Citation needed}}. The depression that sometimes persists alongside atheism could have conceivably influenced him to use harmful matericalistic pleasures like tobacco and alcohol as a coping mechanism {{Citation needed}} , since an avowed atheist like Hitchens would not decide to seek spiritual health, attend a Christian church or look for "answers" in the Bible. This provides reason to speculate that atheism influenced Hitchens' bad habits {{Citation needed}}, which lead to his cancer and death.

Whether Hichens' cancer death was influenced in any direct sense remains more uncertain. While a Christian should not speak directly for God, the Bible does show that, in specific instances, God has been known to punish sinners and the unrepentant with disease.<ref>http://bible.cc/acts/12-23.htm</ref> The Bible has also made it clear that those who wish evil on others deserve no better themselves, and as Hitchens praised the sad and gruesome death of Rev. Jerry Falwell, the possibility of divine retribution remains as well depending on a Christians interpretation of God's word and actions.

On the flip side, God has been shown to bestow mercy on those who are sick and seek His help. The many stories of [[Jesus]] healing the blind, crippled, and ill are the first examples. Even during today's times, there have been claims of modern day miracles as well, such as the possible "curing" of a person's cancer by a Roman Catholic priest, through the power of prayer - something which Hitchens likely rejected to his deathbed. <ref>http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-cancer-cure-miracle-vatican-071510,0,6569863.story</ref> Again it would be presumptuous for a Christian to speak directly on God's behalf, as is Hitchen's most obvious [[hell|eternal fate]] according to the Bible (for only God knows for a fact whether or not he repented on his deathbead) nevertheless the possibilities are a good topic of discussion among Christians and non-Christians alike.

==External links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662757,00.html "Why Christopher Hitchens Is Wrong About Billy Graham"], Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, ''[[Time magazine]]'' Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2007

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hitchens, Christopher}}
[[Category:Authors|Hitchens, Christopher]]

[[Category: Journalists]]
[[Category: Atheists]]
[[Category: Evolutionists]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]
[[Category: Atheism]]