Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rape

2007-03-21T03:55:09Z

Hillaryr: New page: ==Rape== What conservapedia did to Wikipedia.

==Rape==

What conservapedia did to Wikipedia.

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-19T02:46:52Z

Hillaryr: /* It should */

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

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

2007-03-19T02:41:20Z

Hillaryr: /* '''no...''' */

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

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

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

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

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

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

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

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

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

2007-03-19T02:39:26Z

Hillaryr: /* '''yes...''' */

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

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

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

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

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

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

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

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-19T02:36:56Z

Hillaryr: /* Yes */

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-03-19T02:33:33Z

Hillaryr: /* Yes */

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07