Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

How I Met Your Mother

2011-04-07T20:14:50Z

MartinS:

'''''How I Met Your Mother''''' is an [[America]]n [[sitcom]] on [[CBS]]. It is narrated in the year 2030 by elder Ted Mosby ([[Bob Saget]]) as he slowly tells his children the story of how he met their mother. The [[comedy]] follows the younger Ted Mosby ([[Josh Radnor]]), his best friend Marshall ([[Jason Segel]]), his fiance Lily ([[Alyson Hannigan]], of [[American Pie]] fame), their attractive friend Robin ([[Cobie Smulders]]), and their wealthy, womanizing, liberal, alcoholic and gambling-addicted friend Barney ([[Neil Patrick Harris]]).

[[Category:Television Shows]]

User talk:MartinS

2010-11-29T04:35:19Z

MartinS:

== IP addresses ==

Thanks for adding the information...but can you also provide a reference/citation? Thanks! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:25, 28 November 2010 (EST)
:No problem, I got it. [[User:MartinS|MartinS]] 23:35, 28 November 2010 (EST)

IP address

2010-11-29T04:34:29Z

MartinS: Added Reference

An '''IP address''' ("Internet Protocol", commonly known as an ''[[IP]]'') is a number which is an exclusive number all information technology devices including printers, routers, modems, et al. It is given to a [[computer]] upon accessing the [[Internet]] or a [[LAN]].

IP addresses may be either ''static'' or ''dynamic''. Static IP addresses do not change, while dynamic IP addresses do. Dynamic IP addresses are issued from a pool of IP addresses allocated by your ISP or DHCP Server. If a computer's dynamic IP address expires, the computer is assigned a new one.

IP addresses are often traced to service providers using WHOIS searches such as those provided by the five RIRs. WHOIS search results usually provide useful information for contacting the ISPs to report abuse.

IP version 4 is what's currently used by most network devices. However, with more and more computers accessing the internet, IPv4 addresses are running out quickly. Just like in a city, addresses have to be created for new neighborhoods but, if your neighborhood gets too large, you will have to come up with an entire new pool of addresses. IPv4 is limited to just 4,294,967,296 addresses. IP version 6 is the replacement for the aging IPv4. The estimated number of unique addresses for IPv6 is 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 or 2^128. <ref name="What is My IP">http://www.whatismyip.com/faq/what-is-an-ip-address.asp</ref>

==See also==
*[[Network abuse]]
*[[Open proxy]]
*[[Internet service provider]]

==External links==
*[https://www.arin.net American Registry for Internet Numbers]
*[http://www.ripe.net European Network Information Center]
*[http://www.apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Center]
*[http://www.afrinic.net African Network Information Center]
*[http://www.lacnic.net Latin American/Carribean Network Information Center]

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Information technology]]

V. O. Key

2010-11-29T04:29:18Z

MartinS:

'''Valdimer Orlando Key, Jr.''' (March 13, 1908 - October 4, [[1963]]), usually known simply as '''V. O. Key''', was an influential American [[political science|political scientist]] known for his empirical study of elections and voting behavior.

Key was born in Austin, Texas, to a Ukrainian family. He was educated at the [[University of Texas at Austin]] (B.A., 1929; M.A., 1930), earned his Ph.D] from the [[University of Chicago]] in 1934, and taught at [[UCLA]], [[Johns Hopkins University]] (1938-49), and [[Yale University]] (1949-51) before starting his last professorship at [[Harvard University]] in 1951.

In 1936–38 he served with the Social Science Research Council and the National Resources Planning Board.

During [[World War II]] he worked with his mentor Harold Gosnell at the Bureau of the Budget.

In 1942 Key published the first edition of his textbook, ''Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups'', in which he emphasized that politics was a contest and the main players were organized interest groups. The book decisively shaped the teaching of political science by introducing realism in analysis of politics, introducing the "interest group" model, and introducing behavioral methods based on statistical analysis of election returns. It went through three editions but was not revised after his death. His ''Southern Politics in State and Nation'' (1949) was a microscopic examination, state by state, of Southern politics using interviews and statistics. [http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/42 see the discussion by John Corbett.] In ''Public Opinion and American Democracy'' (1961) he analyzed the link between the changing patterns of public opinion and the governmental system. He opposed the "Michigan model" that that argued voters' preferences were determined by psychological factors, thereby taking most of the politics out of political science. In his posthumous work, ''The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–60'' (1966), he analyzed public opinion data and electoral returns to show what he believed to be the rationality of voters' choices as political decisions rather than responses to psychological stimuli.

Other works by Key include ''The Techniques of Political Graft in the United States'' (1936), ''A Primer of Statistics for Political Scientists'' (1954), and ''American State Politics: An Introduction'' (1956). He pioneered the study of critical elections and served as president of the [[American Political Science Association]] in 1958–59.

He died in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

==References==
*Andrew M. Lucker. '' V. O. Key Jr.: The Quintessential Political Scientist'' (2001).
*Keith Fitzgerald. "History, institutions, and political culture: V.O. Key as an exemplar for a revived research program." ''Political Science Reviewer'' (December 31, 2000).
* Ness, Gary C. "The Southern Politics Project and the Writing of Recent Southern History." ''South Atlantic Quarterly'' 1977 76(1): 58-72. ISSN 0038-2876 * Uslander, Eric M. "Comparative State Policy Formation, Interparty Competition, and Malapportionment: a New Look at 'V. O. Key's Hypotheses'". ''Journal of Politics'' 1978 40(2): 409-432. ISSN 0022-3816 Fulltext at Jstor and Ebsco

<references/>
[[category:Political Scientists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Key, V.O.}}

American Government Lecture Three

2010-11-29T04:21:08Z

MartinS: minor spelling fix

There are three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Last week we learned about the legislative branch, which for the United States (federal) government is Congress. This week we learn about the executive branch.

The top official in the executive branch is the [[President of the United States of America|president]]. He is mentioned on the news more than anyone else, not because he is necessarily the most influential, but because it is easiest for news sources to put one reporter and one camera outside the White House (his home) to speculate about what the president thinks, or what he is going to do about something, or why the executive branch made a particular decision, and it easiest to refer to the entire executive branch as the "[president's name] Administration" regardless of whether the president has any involvement in the issue. It is far more difficult (and more expensive) for the media to report on and explain what Congress is doing, and even harder still to describe an important case being decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has nine people who jointly make decisions, and it does not help television ratings to place all nine pictures on the screen!

The president is not a king. His powers are limited and enumerated. He lacks a special title, and is called simply “Mr. President.” Under the [[Twenty-Second Amendment|22nd Amendment]], the President of the United States of America|president may not be [[election|elected]] more than two terms. But often a president serves only one term, and is defeated for reelection (examples include Jimmy Carter and the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush).

The president is often, but not always, the leader of his own political [[party]] which nominates him. Certainly his approval rating (the percentage of Americans who approve of the job he is doing) affects the positions and fortunes of his entire political party. If his party is in control of [[Congress]], then the president can exert enormous influence over it. If the opposing political party controls Congress, then it devotes its time to opposing his policies as much as possible. Either way, the political party of the president controls the [[political agenda]].

Beyond [[politics]], [[historian]]s debate how much influence a president really has over the [[United States of America|nation]]. But the president his is held responsible regardless of whether he is at fault. When [[Iran]]ian students captured the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held [[America]]n diplomats hostage for a [[year]], president [[Jimmy Carter]] was held responsible. Was it his fault? [[Vote]]rs held him responsible and 60% voted against him in the next election.

[[Economist]]s say that the outcome of every presidential election can be predicted by how well the [[economy]] is doing on [[Election Day]]. Can the president control the economy? Not completely, but he can have an influence. Voters typically reelect him if the economy is doing well, but elect someone else if it is doing poorly.

[[Category:American Government lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:American Government Lecture 04}}

IP address

2010-11-29T04:14:22Z

MartinS: Addes some extra information

An '''IP address''' ("Internet Protocol", commonly known as an ''[[IP]]'') is a number which is an exclusive number all information technology devices including printers, routers, modems, et al. It is given to a [[computer]] upon accessing the [[Internet]] or a [[LAN]].

IP addresses may be either ''static'' or ''dynamic''. Static IP addresses do not change, while dynamic IP addresses do. Dynamic IP addresses are issued from a pool of IP addresses allocated by your ISP or DHCP Server. If a computer's dynamic IP address expires, the computer is assigned a new one.

IP addresses are often traced to service providers using WHOIS searches such as those provided by the five RIRs. WHOIS search results usually provide useful information for contacting the ISPs to report abuse.

IP version 4 is what's currently used by most network devices. However, with more and more computers accessing the internet, IPv4 addresses are running out quickly. Just like in a city, addresses have to be created for new neighborhoods but, if your neighborhood gets too large, you will have to come up with an entire new pool of addresses. IPv4 is limited to just 4,294,967,296 addresses. IP version 6 is the replacement for the aging IPv4. The estimated number of unique addresses for IPv6 is 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 or 2^128.

==See also==
*[[Network abuse]]
*[[Open proxy]]
*[[Internet service provider]]

==External links==
*[https://www.arin.net American Registry for Internet Numbers]
*[http://www.ripe.net European Network Information Center]
*[http://www.apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Center]
*[http://www.afrinic.net African Network Information Center]
*[http://www.lacnic.net Latin American/Carribean Network Information Center]

[[Category:Information technology]]

Snowflake

2010-05-20T04:33:15Z

MartinS: I don't think "puff-balls" is really a technical term

A snow crystal, as the name implies, is a single crystal of [[ice]]. A '''snowflake''' is a more general term; it can mean an individual snow crystal, or a few snow crystals stuck together, or large agglomerations of snow crystals that form small balls that float down from the clouds. <ref>[http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/ Snowflakes and snow crystals]</ref>

Snowflakes are not frozen [[rain]]drops. Sometimes raindrops do freeze as they fall, but this is called [[sleet]]. Sleet particles don't have any of the elaborate and symmetrical patterning found in snow crystals. Snow crystals form when water vapor condenses directly into ice, which happens in the clouds. The patterns emerge as the [[crystal]]s grow.

==See Also==
*[[snow]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Weather]]

Idolatry

2010-04-21T22:22:26Z

MartinS: /* See also */ I'm not sure but linking List of American Heroes to Idolatry seems like vandalism to me

'''Idolatry''' is the worship of idols. It is prohibited in the first commandment of the [[Decalogue]]. Modern [[secularism]] is considered to be a form of idolatry.

Idolatry is considered by the Jewish and Christian [[faith|faiths]] to be gravely sinful. Early Jews and Christians accepted [[martyrdom]] rather than comply with orders to commit idolatry.

Muslims consider statues of religious figures to be a form of idolatry, and do not refer to themselves as Muhammadans for the same reason, as they feel that this term implies that they worship Muhammad.<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>

Most religions that make use of idols do not actually worship the image itself. Far more often they are regarded as focus points for worship or as a likeness of the god. Only rarely is the image itself considered to be the god. They can also be used to convey or focus on a particular aspect of a many-faceted deity, and this usage is common in Hinduism.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[category:Paganism]]

Network neutrality

2010-04-21T22:19:20Z

MartinS: spelling fix

'''Network neutrality''' is a topic currently under debate regarding whether [[Internet service provider]]s have the right to charge [[website]]s on the [[internet]] for "premium" connections. Many contend that this is that this would disrupt the continuity of the online community by relegating unpopular and less affluent websites to "second class citizens" that would serve their pages much slower than the ones who can pay the bandwidth providers. Others argue that a law requiring Network neutrality would prevent Internet service providers from providing superior services to those who need it.

Many corporations and advocacy groups support neutrality regulations, while hardware companies and providers themselves tend to be against it. Some great figures of the internet also oppose it, such as David Farber, noted for major contributions to programming languages and computer networking, and Bob Kann, who helped invent the TCP/IP technologies used to transmit information on the Internet.

On September 21, 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed increased FCC enforcement of already-existing "net neutrality" rules. He and his supporters described the possible new regulations as keeping the internet open; Genachowski himself said "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet," and Democratic Representative Ed Markey called the proposal "a significant step towards preserving the free and open nature" of the Internet.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125354032776727741.html</ref>

Internet providers, however, tend to see no need for increased regulation, and fear that with increased use of bandwidth through applications such as video downloads, their networks could be overloaded if they are not allowed to control them. Jim Cicconi, a high-level employee at AT&T, said that AT&T would be "very disappointed if [the FCC] has already drawn a conclusion to regulate wireless services despite the absence of any compelling evidence of problems or abuse that would warrant government intervention." Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at wireless trade group CTIA, said "We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy." <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_go_ot/us_internet_rules</ref>

If, as critics of "net neutrality" fear, regulations actually cause networks to be swamped and slowed by increased bandwidth use, the internet could become less usable for everyone.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Conservapedia talk:Quick reference

2010-04-21T03:12:43Z

MartinS: /* Minor error */

*Might be nice if we could be told how users can get access to upload, I think. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:22, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::The change is very new, and I don't know the answer to that myself yet, which is why I didn't include it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, is there someone we can check with? It has been 24 hours now.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::Andy has now advised that apparently only bureaucrats can provide this. I'll amend the article accordingly, but it also needs links (e.g. to the sysops) which will have to wait, due to lack of time at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Faulty link ==

*The Administrators link is faulty. It should be http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50
: I suspect that the link was okay. That is, it certainly was okay before, and it's probably the software upgrade that has caused it to not work, but I suspect not the newer software itself, but a setting that has been lost in the process. Anyway, I fixed it and also the bureaucrat one. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Minor error==
I noticed there was a small grammatical error on this page under the heading ''If you get blocked'' under the list of methods of appeal there is an error. It reads "If you contact more than person about this" while it should read "If you contact more than '''one''' person about this". I would fix it myself but alas, I lack the necessary privileges to edit this page. So could someone else do it for me? Thanks! [[User:MartinS|MartinS]] 23:12, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Quick reference

2010-04-21T03:12:10Z

MartinS: There is a minor error on the Contributors Guide that needs fixing

*Might be nice if we could be told how users can get access to upload, I think. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:22, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::The change is very new, and I don't know the answer to that myself yet, which is why I didn't include it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, is there someone we can check with? It has been 24 hours now.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::Andy has now advised that apparently only bureaucrats can provide this. I'll amend the article accordingly, but it also needs links (e.g. to the sysops) which will have to wait, due to lack of time at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Faulty link ==

*The Administrators link is faulty. It should be http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50
: I suspect that the link was okay. That is, it certainly was okay before, and it's probably the software upgrade that has caused it to not work, but I suspect not the newer software itself, but a setting that has been lost in the process. Anyway, I fixed it and also the bureaucrat one. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Minor error==
I noticed there was a small grammatical error on this page under the heading "If you get blocked'' under the list of methods of appeal there is an error. It reads "If you contact more than person about this" while it should read "If you contact more than '''one''' person about this". I would fix it myself but alas, I lack the necessary privileges to edit this page. So could someone else do it for me? Thanks! [[User:MartinS|MartinS]] 23:12, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Ship of the line

2010-04-21T02:59:19Z

MartinS:

During the age of sail, a '''ship of the line''' was a warship of sufficient fire-power to engage in the line of battle. It was replaced in the mid-19th century by the steam-powered [[Battleship]], which was much faster and more maneuverable.
[[Image:Shipline1.jpg|thumb|330px|French threedecker ''Royal Louis'' (1780) with 122 cannons]]

During the Anglo-Dutch wars of the second half of the 17th century naval tacticians, aware that as a floating artillery battery a warship was far more effective when it was side-on to the enemy and could fire all the guns along one side of the ship - a “broadside” - and that the more ships that could be side-on to the enemy at a given time, the more weight of shot could be sent across the intervening water, began developing controlled squadron formations to facilitate this. Up until then naval battles had tended to be free-for-alls - sort of nautical melees. From this time, until the introduction of “over the horizon” artillery and development of the aircraft carrier in the 20th century, the line of battle was the way to go.

The ship of the line became the ultimate naval fighting unit during the 18th and early 19th centuries. It was a two- or three-decker carrying between 64 and 130 guns firing 24 and 32 pound shot, often at point-blank range. The ship’s size was not just to maximise its use as a stable as possible gun platform, but to allow it to absorb the fire from an enemy as powerful as itself.

From the middle of the 18th century, warships of the era were “rated” according to the number of guns – from 1 to 6. About 1800, a “''first-rater''” carried over 100 guns, employed between 850 and 900 crew and had a displacement weight of over 2000 tons. ([[Horatio Nelson|Nelson]]’s “''Victory''” (103 guns) is the most famous of this class.) A “''second-rater''” carried 84 to 90 and a “''third-rater''” 64 to 80. The smaller classes rated the [[frigate]]s and other support vessels that were considered not powerful enough to be in the line of battle. (Attempts were made to design a large 60 gun frigate for this use, but whilst effective in smaller fleet actions they failed in major engagements.) In 1810, 110 guns became the lower limit for a “''first-rater''”.
[[Image:Shipline3.jpg|thumb|360px|left|Closeup stern view of a model of the ''Royal Louis'' (1780)]]

These vessels – the so-called “''wooden walls''” - defended Britain during the various wars of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and on two occasions saved the country from imminent invasion. (See [[Battle of Quiberon Bay]] (1759) and [[Trafalgar]] (1805).) Whilst it was generally considered that French ships were superior, British discipline, resulting in a greater rate of fire, and seamanship led to very few defeats in major naval engagements during this period.

The last major engagement between wooden-hulled sailing ships was the Battle of Navarino between Britain and [[Turkey]] in 1827 during the Greek War of Independence. It is notable that the Turkish superiority in number of ships (almost 4 to 1) and guns (almost double) was negated by Britain’s 10 ships of the line to Turkey’s 3.
==Further reading==
* Nicholas Blake. ''Steering to Glory: A Day in the Life of a Ship of the Line'' (2006)
* Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan. ''British Napoleonic Ship-of-the-Line'' (2001), well illustrated [http://www.amazon.com/British-Napoleonic-Ship-Line-Vanguard/dp/184176308X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234561015&sr=8-8 except and text search]
* Brian Lavery. ''The Ship of the Line, Vol. 1: The Development of the Battlefleet 1650-1850'' (2004)
** Brian Lavery. ''Ship of the Line, Vol. 2: Design, Construction and Fittings'' (1998)

==See also==
* [[Battleship]]
* [[Frigate]]
* [[Naval warfare]]
* [[Naval guns]]
* [[Battle of Trafalgar]] great British victory in 1805

[[Category:Warships]]
[[Category:Sailing ship types]]
[[Category:Naval History]]

Talk:Pinnate Venation

2010-04-21T02:57:03Z

MartinS: Created page with '==Image== The image on this page isn't really very good, is there a way we could get another one? ~~~~'

==Image==
The image on this page isn't really very good, is there a way we could get another one? [[User:MartinS|MartinS]] 22:57, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Charles Alexander Moffat

2010-04-21T02:42:43Z

MartinS: /* Trivia */ There are no citations to back this up and frankly it looks like vandalism

'''Charles Alexander Moffat''' or '''Charles Moffat''' (born 1979 in Wingham, [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]) is a controversial Canadian artist, writer and movie director. Moffat has directed movies and short videos like "The Fear Americans Series", "Nuclear Winter" and "Nightmares in the Morning".

==Biography==

Charles Moffat studied at Hillcrest Public School in Teeswater, Ontario, Walkerton District Secondary School in Walkerton, Ontario, John Diefenbaker Secondary School in [[Hanover]], Ontario and at [[York University]] in [[Toronto]], Canada.

Moffat's acrylic and oil paintings focuses on controversial topics such as [[abortion]], genetic manipulation, sexuality, [[gothic]] culture, fetishes, [[feminism]], American politics, [[censorship]], the [[Korea]]n Demilitarized Zone and [[atheism]].

Moffat is also known for his paintings of female violinists.<ref>[http://www.valeska.com/art/art.htm Violinist painting by Charles Alexander Moffat]</ref>

===Writing===

Moffat is a prolific writer and has written four fantasy novels including: "The Paladin Assassin" (1995), "Ice War" (1996), "King Culprit" (1997) and "Rise of the Blade" (1998). The fourth book "Rise of the Blade" was meant to be published as part of The Harpers Series for the Forgotten Realms fantasy world, but The Harpers Series was canceled<ref>[http://www.candlekeep.com/bookshelf/novels.htm List of Forgotten Realms Novels], retrieved on May 25th 2007.</ref>.

Moffat has also written on a variety of topics including from art history, mythology and politics including "The Neo-Gothic Art Manifesto", "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction", "The Demonification of Lilith" and "Canadian Unity and Quebec Separation". He translated a [[Sumerian]] legend about [[Lilith]] into English<ref>[http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=1576 Sumerian Lilith], retrieved on May 25th 2007.</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

===External Links===

*[http://music.cd-writer.com/c416/p25681/fan_websites/charles_alexander_fan_websites.html List of Fan Websites for Charles Alexander Moffat]
*[http://www.vampires.nu/pages/Forums.cfm/action/viewmessages/PageID/10/Forum/15/Topic/1537 Charles Alexander Moffat Discussion Group]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Moffat, Charles Alexander}}
[[Category:Canadians]]

Suppression of alternatives to evolution

2010-04-21T02:37:11Z

MartinS: /* History */ spelling

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]].

== History ==

Until [[Charles Darwin]] popularised<ref>Darwin didn't invent the idea. Similar ideas had been around for a long time, and even Charles Darwin's uncle Erasmus was an evolutionist.</ref> the idea of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists.
Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design.
Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life.
(These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design.
This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalizing or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

{{QuoteBox|It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].<ref>Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, ''Christian Times'', p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.</ref>}}

The movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' with [[Ben Stein]] released in April 2008 exposes the suppression of alternatives to evolution.

== Ideology ==
The motivation for suppressing views opposed to evolution includes anti-theistic ideologies.

Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ''a priori'' adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.<ref>Lewontin, Richard, Billions and billions of demons, ''The New York Review'', p. 31, 9 January 1997, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/ Amazing admission], ''Creation'' 20(3):24, June 1998.</ref>}}

Atheist professor Jerry Fodor, on attempts to question the theory:{{QuoteBox|I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.<ref>http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/22/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/</ref>}}

== Vilification ==
Anti-creationists have often openly vilified creation and creationists:
* [[Isaac Asimov]] said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."<ref>Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? ''The Humanist'' 44(4):6–10, 1984, quoted by Bergman, 2005</ref>
* [[Richard Dawkins]] said that anyone rejecting evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that)"<ref>Barnes, 2007</ref>
* Tom Mason, Director of the [[Armagh]] planetarium, links the creationary view to [[Islam]]ic fundamentalism, the [[Inquisition]], and [[Jihad]], and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".<ref>Mason, Tom, Science and Fundamentalism, ''Earth Science Ireland'', issue 3, spring 2008 (available online at [http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/], then click on "Newletter" link).</ref>

Creationary [[scientist]]s frequently have their qualifications questioned, blatantly or subtly.
* On the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education, the article about Creation Ministries International lists CMI's senior staff, but for each scientist listed, puts quote marks around the word "scientist", implying that they are not really scientists.<ref>[http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationMinistriesInternational Creation Ministries International] on the BSCE web-site.</ref> Yet each of the scientists listed holds valid qualifications from reputable secular universities.

== Cases of suppression ==

=== Recognition affected ===

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

==== David Bolhuis ====

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, [[Michigan]] was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year.
However, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution.
Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.<ref>Bergman, 1984, pp.25 & 26.</ref>

=== Employment affected ===

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed.
This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

==== Lloyd Dale ====

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.<ref>Bergman, 1986, p.61.</ref>

==== Forrest Mims ====

[[Forrest Mims]] III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 [[newspaper]]s and [[magazine]]s.

Science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' invited him to submit some articles for their ''Amateur Scientist'' column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.

The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.<ref>Anon., 1991.</ref><ref>Anon., 1997?</ref>

==== Richard Sternberg ====
{{main|Smithsonian-Sternberg affair}}

==== Guillermo Gonzalez ====
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied [[tenure]] and promotion to associate professor by [[Iowa State University]], despite apparently easily meeting their criteria.
The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals".
Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.

But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.<ref>Grigg, 2007</ref><ref>Klinghoffer, 2007</ref>

==== Robert Gentry ====

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on [[radiohalos]], and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including ''Science'', ''Nature'', and ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.<ref>Gentry, 186, p.191</ref><ref>Buckna</ref>

==== Roger Paull ====
Roger Paull was a substitute [[teacher]] in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher.
The video disparaged [[Christianity]] and glorified [[naturalism]].
After the third video, on [[theory of evolution|evolution]], he briefly mentioned [[intelligent design]] to the class.
The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed".
He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
<ref>Paull, 2007</ref>

==== Michael Reiss ====
Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students ''about'' creationism,<ref>Simpson and Gray, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b)</ref> and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the [[Royal Society]].<ref>Beckford, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b).</ref>

=== Accreditation affected ===
==== The ICR Graduate School ====
{{main|ICR Graduate School#Controversies{{!}}ICR Graduate School}}

The [[ICR Graduate School]] had for years been offering graduate degrees in [[California]]. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, [[William Honig]], determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to [[Texas]] but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

=== Court challenges to education ===

In 1925 the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] challenged a [[Tennessee]] law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the [[Scopes Trial]].
The ACLU lawyer, [[Clarence Darrow]], argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.<ref>[http://new.jesuscreated.org/index.html Jesus Created Ministries, Home page].</ref>

Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

==== Dover County School Board ====

{{main|Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District}}

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book ''Of Pandas and People'' is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.

But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

==== Philip Bishop ====

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the [[University of Alabama]], to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring [[intelligent design]], on the grounds that they were religious.
Yet views ''opposing'' religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.<ref>Bergman, 2004</ref>

==== Cobb County School District ====

{{main|Selman v. Cobb County School District}}

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in [[Georgia]], U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:
{{QuoteBox|This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.}}
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

=== Peer review publications ===

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass [[peer review]], and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.<ref>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}

==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====

The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>

==== ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' ====

In August 2004<ref>Meyer, 2004. The on-line archives of the magazine list it as June 2004 [http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=2], but this is not considered reliable, as the same source lists both of the following two issues as being December 2004.</ref> the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' published a paper by [[Stephen Meyer]]<ref>Meyer, 2004</ref> which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.

The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the [[Biological Society of Washington]] undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.

There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false.<ref>McVay, 2005</ref>
The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]'s position that intelligent design is not science.<ref>Sternberg; Walker, 2007; Klinghoffer, 1995a</ref><ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>

==== ''Science'' letters to the editor ====

After failing to get a letter published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', [[Russell Humphreys]] wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters.
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Public information ===

==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====

In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], executive director of the American [[National Center for Science Education]], openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument. '''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist<ref>This is according to the official transcript. The audio sounded more like this being a reference to Christian Science than Christian scientists. The [[Christian Science]] cult, unlike Christian scientists, denies the germ theory of disease.</ref> who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}

==== Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre ====

When creationists proposed<ref>The Causeway Creation Committee, [http://www.causewaycreation.com/Objectives.html Objectives]</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/30/creationists-claim-the-giants-causeway/ Creationists claim the Giant’s Causeway], Reuters Blogs, 30th November, 2007.</ref> that a new visitor's centre at the [[Giant's Causeway]] geological formation in [[Northern Ireland]] should include the creationist explanation of its formation<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016 A giant cause], ''Creation'' 27(2):28–34, March 2005.</ref> alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.<ref>Zalasiewicz, Jan, and Bazley, Tony, [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page3473_en.html Giant's Causeway - myth and reality], ''Geoscientist'' 18.4, April 2008.</ref><ref>Walker, Tasman, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5729 Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UK] 3rd May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

=== Attempts to prevent creationists being heard ===

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

==== Werner Gitt ====

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. [[Werner Gitt]] from giving a talk titled ''Why I as a scientist believe the Bible'' at Leibniz University.
The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk.
As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead.
Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.<ref>Wieland, 2008</ref>

{{Creation_vs._evolution}}

== Bibliography ==
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248/ Scientific American refuses to hire creationist], ''Creation'' 13(2):16–17, March 1991.
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3470/ Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination], 1997?  (Creation Ministries International).
* Barnes, Peter, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5405/ The early chapters of Genesis and evolution], 13th November, 2007 (Creation Ministries International)
* Beckford, Martin, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools] ''Telegraph'', 16th September, 2008.</ref>
* Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion, Onesimus, Richfield Minnesota, 1984, ISBN 0-932903-01-0.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/ Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview], ''Journal of Creation'' 9(2):267–275, August 1995.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=97 A Story of Two Professors] ''Impact'' 372, 1st June, 2004.
* Buckna, David, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486/ Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville Tennessee, 1986, ISBN 0-9616753-1-4.
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126/ Darwinian thought police strike again], 12th June 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 Expelled: New movie exposes persecution of anti-Darwinists], 15th February, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6047/ Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution], 23rd September, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic], ''Opinion Journal'', 28th January, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp Unintelligent Design] National Review Online, 16th August, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp Tenure Trouble], The Weekly Standard, 6th August, 2007.
* McVay, James, [http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"], 5th August, 2005.
* Paull, Roger, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5788 Censoring intelligent design], 27th May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sheppard, Pam, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/ The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy], 22nd August, 2005 (Creation Ministries International).
* Simpson, Aislinn, and Gray, Richard, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert] ''Telegraph'', 12th September, 2008.
* Sternberg, Richard, [http://www.rsternberg.net/ Richard Sternberg's home page]
* Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5053/ Chemists in stew about intelligent design], 24th April, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6182 ‘Go to hell, creationists!’], 30th December, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Williams, Robyn, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2003/798387.htm The Steve Project] The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast 8th March, 2003.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Suppression of alternatives to evolution

2010-04-21T02:35:33Z

MartinS: /* Philip Bishop */ American English spelling is prefered on sections about Americans

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]].

== History ==

Until [[Charles Darwin]] popularised<ref>Darwin didn't invent the idea. Similar ideas had been around for a long time, and even Charles Darwin's uncle Erasmus was an evolutionist.</ref> the idea of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists.
Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design.
Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life.
(These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design.
This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalising or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

{{QuoteBox|It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].<ref>Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, ''Christian Times'', p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.</ref>}}

The movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' with [[Ben Stein]] released in April 2008 exposes the suppression of alternatives to evolution.

== Ideology ==
The motivation for suppressing views opposed to evolution includes anti-theistic ideologies.

Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ''a priori'' adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.<ref>Lewontin, Richard, Billions and billions of demons, ''The New York Review'', p. 31, 9 January 1997, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/ Amazing admission], ''Creation'' 20(3):24, June 1998.</ref>}}

Atheist professor Jerry Fodor, on attempts to question the theory:{{QuoteBox|I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.<ref>http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/22/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/</ref>}}

== Vilification ==
Anti-creationists have often openly vilified creation and creationists:
* [[Isaac Asimov]] said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."<ref>Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? ''The Humanist'' 44(4):6–10, 1984, quoted by Bergman, 2005</ref>
* [[Richard Dawkins]] said that anyone rejecting evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that)"<ref>Barnes, 2007</ref>
* Tom Mason, Director of the [[Armagh]] planetarium, links the creationary view to [[Islam]]ic fundamentalism, the [[Inquisition]], and [[Jihad]], and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".<ref>Mason, Tom, Science and Fundamentalism, ''Earth Science Ireland'', issue 3, spring 2008 (available online at [http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/], then click on "Newletter" link).</ref>

Creationary [[scientist]]s frequently have their qualifications questioned, blatantly or subtly.
* On the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education, the article about Creation Ministries International lists CMI's senior staff, but for each scientist listed, puts quote marks around the word "scientist", implying that they are not really scientists.<ref>[http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationMinistriesInternational Creation Ministries International] on the BSCE web-site.</ref> Yet each of the scientists listed holds valid qualifications from reputable secular universities.

== Cases of suppression ==

=== Recognition affected ===

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

==== David Bolhuis ====

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, [[Michigan]] was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year.
However, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution.
Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.<ref>Bergman, 1984, pp.25 & 26.</ref>

=== Employment affected ===

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed.
This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

==== Lloyd Dale ====

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.<ref>Bergman, 1986, p.61.</ref>

==== Forrest Mims ====

[[Forrest Mims]] III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 [[newspaper]]s and [[magazine]]s.

Science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' invited him to submit some articles for their ''Amateur Scientist'' column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.

The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.<ref>Anon., 1991.</ref><ref>Anon., 1997?</ref>

==== Richard Sternberg ====
{{main|Smithsonian-Sternberg affair}}

==== Guillermo Gonzalez ====
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied [[tenure]] and promotion to associate professor by [[Iowa State University]], despite apparently easily meeting their criteria.
The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals".
Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.

But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.<ref>Grigg, 2007</ref><ref>Klinghoffer, 2007</ref>

==== Robert Gentry ====

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on [[radiohalos]], and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including ''Science'', ''Nature'', and ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.<ref>Gentry, 186, p.191</ref><ref>Buckna</ref>

==== Roger Paull ====
Roger Paull was a substitute [[teacher]] in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher.
The video disparaged [[Christianity]] and glorified [[naturalism]].
After the third video, on [[theory of evolution|evolution]], he briefly mentioned [[intelligent design]] to the class.
The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed".
He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
<ref>Paull, 2007</ref>

==== Michael Reiss ====
Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students ''about'' creationism,<ref>Simpson and Gray, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b)</ref> and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the [[Royal Society]].<ref>Beckford, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b).</ref>

=== Accreditation affected ===
==== The ICR Graduate School ====
{{main|ICR Graduate School#Controversies{{!}}ICR Graduate School}}

The [[ICR Graduate School]] had for years been offering graduate degrees in [[California]]. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, [[William Honig]], determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to [[Texas]] but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

=== Court challenges to education ===

In 1925 the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] challenged a [[Tennessee]] law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the [[Scopes Trial]].
The ACLU lawyer, [[Clarence Darrow]], argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.<ref>[http://new.jesuscreated.org/index.html Jesus Created Ministries, Home page].</ref>

Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

==== Dover County School Board ====

{{main|Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District}}

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book ''Of Pandas and People'' is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.

But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

==== Philip Bishop ====

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the [[University of Alabama]], to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring [[intelligent design]], on the grounds that they were religious.
Yet views ''opposing'' religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.<ref>Bergman, 2004</ref>

==== Cobb County School District ====

{{main|Selman v. Cobb County School District}}

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in [[Georgia]], U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:
{{QuoteBox|This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.}}
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

=== Peer review publications ===

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass [[peer review]], and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.<ref>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}

==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====

The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>

==== ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' ====

In August 2004<ref>Meyer, 2004. The on-line archives of the magazine list it as June 2004 [http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=2], but this is not considered reliable, as the same source lists both of the following two issues as being December 2004.</ref> the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' published a paper by [[Stephen Meyer]]<ref>Meyer, 2004</ref> which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.

The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the [[Biological Society of Washington]] undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.

There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false.<ref>McVay, 2005</ref>
The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]'s position that intelligent design is not science.<ref>Sternberg; Walker, 2007; Klinghoffer, 1995a</ref><ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>

==== ''Science'' letters to the editor ====

After failing to get a letter published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', [[Russell Humphreys]] wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters.
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Public information ===

==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====

In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], executive director of the American [[National Center for Science Education]], openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument. '''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist<ref>This is according to the official transcript. The audio sounded more like this being a reference to Christian Science than Christian scientists. The [[Christian Science]] cult, unlike Christian scientists, denies the germ theory of disease.</ref> who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}

==== Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre ====

When creationists proposed<ref>The Causeway Creation Committee, [http://www.causewaycreation.com/Objectives.html Objectives]</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/30/creationists-claim-the-giants-causeway/ Creationists claim the Giant’s Causeway], Reuters Blogs, 30th November, 2007.</ref> that a new visitor's centre at the [[Giant's Causeway]] geological formation in [[Northern Ireland]] should include the creationist explanation of its formation<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016 A giant cause], ''Creation'' 27(2):28–34, March 2005.</ref> alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.<ref>Zalasiewicz, Jan, and Bazley, Tony, [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page3473_en.html Giant's Causeway - myth and reality], ''Geoscientist'' 18.4, April 2008.</ref><ref>Walker, Tasman, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5729 Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UK] 3rd May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

=== Attempts to prevent creationists being heard ===

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

==== Werner Gitt ====

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. [[Werner Gitt]] from giving a talk titled ''Why I as a scientist believe the Bible'' at Leibniz University.
The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk.
As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead.
Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.<ref>Wieland, 2008</ref>

{{Creation_vs._evolution}}

== Bibliography ==
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248/ Scientific American refuses to hire creationist], ''Creation'' 13(2):16–17, March 1991.
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3470/ Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination], 1997?  (Creation Ministries International).
* Barnes, Peter, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5405/ The early chapters of Genesis and evolution], 13th November, 2007 (Creation Ministries International)
* Beckford, Martin, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools] ''Telegraph'', 16th September, 2008.</ref>
* Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion, Onesimus, Richfield Minnesota, 1984, ISBN 0-932903-01-0.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/ Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview], ''Journal of Creation'' 9(2):267–275, August 1995.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=97 A Story of Two Professors] ''Impact'' 372, 1st June, 2004.
* Buckna, David, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486/ Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville Tennessee, 1986, ISBN 0-9616753-1-4.
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126/ Darwinian thought police strike again], 12th June 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 Expelled: New movie exposes persecution of anti-Darwinists], 15th February, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6047/ Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution], 23rd September, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic], ''Opinion Journal'', 28th January, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp Unintelligent Design] National Review Online, 16th August, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp Tenure Trouble], The Weekly Standard, 6th August, 2007.
* McVay, James, [http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"], 5th August, 2005.
* Paull, Roger, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5788 Censoring intelligent design], 27th May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sheppard, Pam, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/ The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy], 22nd August, 2005 (Creation Ministries International).
* Simpson, Aislinn, and Gray, Richard, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert] ''Telegraph'', 12th September, 2008.
* Sternberg, Richard, [http://www.rsternberg.net/ Richard Sternberg's home page]
* Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5053/ Chemists in stew about intelligent design], 24th April, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6182 ‘Go to hell, creationists!’], 30th December, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Williams, Robyn, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2003/798387.htm The Steve Project] The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast 8th March, 2003.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Suppression of alternatives to evolution

2010-04-21T02:33:55Z

MartinS: /* Werner Gitt */ spelling

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]].

== History ==

Until [[Charles Darwin]] popularised<ref>Darwin didn't invent the idea. Similar ideas had been around for a long time, and even Charles Darwin's uncle Erasmus was an evolutionist.</ref> the idea of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists.
Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design.
Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life.
(These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design.
This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalising or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

{{QuoteBox|It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].<ref>Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, ''Christian Times'', p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.</ref>}}

The movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' with [[Ben Stein]] released in April 2008 exposes the suppression of alternatives to evolution.

== Ideology ==
The motivation for suppressing views opposed to evolution includes anti-theistic ideologies.

Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ''a priori'' adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.<ref>Lewontin, Richard, Billions and billions of demons, ''The New York Review'', p. 31, 9 January 1997, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/ Amazing admission], ''Creation'' 20(3):24, June 1998.</ref>}}

Atheist professor Jerry Fodor, on attempts to question the theory:{{QuoteBox|I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.<ref>http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/22/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/</ref>}}

== Vilification ==
Anti-creationists have often openly vilified creation and creationists:
* [[Isaac Asimov]] said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."<ref>Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? ''The Humanist'' 44(4):6–10, 1984, quoted by Bergman, 2005</ref>
* [[Richard Dawkins]] said that anyone rejecting evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that)"<ref>Barnes, 2007</ref>
* Tom Mason, Director of the [[Armagh]] planetarium, links the creationary view to [[Islam]]ic fundamentalism, the [[Inquisition]], and [[Jihad]], and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".<ref>Mason, Tom, Science and Fundamentalism, ''Earth Science Ireland'', issue 3, spring 2008 (available online at [http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/], then click on "Newletter" link).</ref>

Creationary [[scientist]]s frequently have their qualifications questioned, blatantly or subtly.
* On the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education, the article about Creation Ministries International lists CMI's senior staff, but for each scientist listed, puts quote marks around the word "scientist", implying that they are not really scientists.<ref>[http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationMinistriesInternational Creation Ministries International] on the BSCE web-site.</ref> Yet each of the scientists listed holds valid qualifications from reputable secular universities.

== Cases of suppression ==

=== Recognition affected ===

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

==== David Bolhuis ====

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, [[Michigan]] was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year.
However, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution.
Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.<ref>Bergman, 1984, pp.25 & 26.</ref>

=== Employment affected ===

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed.
This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

==== Lloyd Dale ====

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.<ref>Bergman, 1986, p.61.</ref>

==== Forrest Mims ====

[[Forrest Mims]] III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 [[newspaper]]s and [[magazine]]s.

Science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' invited him to submit some articles for their ''Amateur Scientist'' column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.

The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.<ref>Anon., 1991.</ref><ref>Anon., 1997?</ref>

==== Richard Sternberg ====
{{main|Smithsonian-Sternberg affair}}

==== Guillermo Gonzalez ====
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied [[tenure]] and promotion to associate professor by [[Iowa State University]], despite apparently easily meeting their criteria.
The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals".
Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.

But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.<ref>Grigg, 2007</ref><ref>Klinghoffer, 2007</ref>

==== Robert Gentry ====

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on [[radiohalos]], and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including ''Science'', ''Nature'', and ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.<ref>Gentry, 186, p.191</ref><ref>Buckna</ref>

==== Roger Paull ====
Roger Paull was a substitute [[teacher]] in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher.
The video disparaged [[Christianity]] and glorified [[naturalism]].
After the third video, on [[theory of evolution|evolution]], he briefly mentioned [[intelligent design]] to the class.
The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed".
He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
<ref>Paull, 2007</ref>

==== Michael Reiss ====
Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students ''about'' creationism,<ref>Simpson and Gray, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b)</ref> and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the [[Royal Society]].<ref>Beckford, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b).</ref>

=== Accreditation affected ===
==== The ICR Graduate School ====
{{main|ICR Graduate School#Controversies{{!}}ICR Graduate School}}

The [[ICR Graduate School]] had for years been offering graduate degrees in [[California]]. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, [[William Honig]], determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to [[Texas]] but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

=== Court challenges to education ===

In 1925 the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] challenged a [[Tennessee]] law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the [[Scopes Trial]].
The ACLU lawyer, [[Clarence Darrow]], argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.<ref>[http://new.jesuscreated.org/index.html Jesus Created Ministries, Home page].</ref>

Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

==== Dover County School Board ====

{{main|Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District}}

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book ''Of Pandas and People'' is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.

But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

==== Philip Bishop ====

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the [[University of Alabama]], to stop him briefly expressing his views favouring [[intelligent design]], on the grounds that they were religious.
Yet views ''opposing'' religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.<ref>Bergman, 2004</ref>

==== Cobb County School District ====

{{main|Selman v. Cobb County School District}}

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in [[Georgia]], U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:
{{QuoteBox|This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.}}
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

=== Peer review publications ===

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass [[peer review]], and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.<ref>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}

==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====

The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>

==== ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' ====

In August 2004<ref>Meyer, 2004. The on-line archives of the magazine list it as June 2004 [http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=2], but this is not considered reliable, as the same source lists both of the following two issues as being December 2004.</ref> the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' published a paper by [[Stephen Meyer]]<ref>Meyer, 2004</ref> which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.

The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the [[Biological Society of Washington]] undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.

There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false.<ref>McVay, 2005</ref>
The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]'s position that intelligent design is not science.<ref>Sternberg; Walker, 2007; Klinghoffer, 1995a</ref><ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>

==== ''Science'' letters to the editor ====

After failing to get a letter published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', [[Russell Humphreys]] wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters.
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Public information ===

==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====

In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], executive director of the American [[National Center for Science Education]], openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument. '''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist<ref>This is according to the official transcript. The audio sounded more like this being a reference to Christian Science than Christian scientists. The [[Christian Science]] cult, unlike Christian scientists, denies the germ theory of disease.</ref> who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}

==== Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre ====

When creationists proposed<ref>The Causeway Creation Committee, [http://www.causewaycreation.com/Objectives.html Objectives]</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/30/creationists-claim-the-giants-causeway/ Creationists claim the Giant’s Causeway], Reuters Blogs, 30th November, 2007.</ref> that a new visitor's centre at the [[Giant's Causeway]] geological formation in [[Northern Ireland]] should include the creationist explanation of its formation<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016 A giant cause], ''Creation'' 27(2):28–34, March 2005.</ref> alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.<ref>Zalasiewicz, Jan, and Bazley, Tony, [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page3473_en.html Giant's Causeway - myth and reality], ''Geoscientist'' 18.4, April 2008.</ref><ref>Walker, Tasman, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5729 Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UK] 3rd May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

=== Attempts to prevent creationists being heard ===

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

==== Werner Gitt ====

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. [[Werner Gitt]] from giving a talk titled ''Why I as a scientist believe the Bible'' at Leibniz University.
The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk.
As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead.
Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.<ref>Wieland, 2008</ref>

{{Creation_vs._evolution}}

== Bibliography ==
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248/ Scientific American refuses to hire creationist], ''Creation'' 13(2):16–17, March 1991.
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3470/ Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination], 1997?  (Creation Ministries International).
* Barnes, Peter, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5405/ The early chapters of Genesis and evolution], 13th November, 2007 (Creation Ministries International)
* Beckford, Martin, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools] ''Telegraph'', 16th September, 2008.</ref>
* Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion, Onesimus, Richfield Minnesota, 1984, ISBN 0-932903-01-0.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/ Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview], ''Journal of Creation'' 9(2):267–275, August 1995.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=97 A Story of Two Professors] ''Impact'' 372, 1st June, 2004.
* Buckna, David, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486/ Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville Tennessee, 1986, ISBN 0-9616753-1-4.
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126/ Darwinian thought police strike again], 12th June 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 Expelled: New movie exposes persecution of anti-Darwinists], 15th February, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6047/ Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution], 23rd September, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic], ''Opinion Journal'', 28th January, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp Unintelligent Design] National Review Online, 16th August, 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp Tenure Trouble], The Weekly Standard, 6th August, 2007.
* McVay, James, [http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"], 5th August, 2005.
* Paull, Roger, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5788 Censoring intelligent design], 27th May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sheppard, Pam, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/ The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy], 22nd August, 2005 (Creation Ministries International).
* Simpson, Aislinn, and Gray, Richard, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert] ''Telegraph'', 12th September, 2008.
* Sternberg, Richard, [http://www.rsternberg.net/ Richard Sternberg's home page]
* Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5053/ Chemists in stew about intelligent design], 24th April, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6182 ‘Go to hell, creationists!’], 30th December, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Williams, Robyn, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2003/798387.htm The Steve Project] The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast 8th March, 2003.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Megaman

2010-04-21T02:17:31Z

MartinS: /* Trivia */ I don't know how onservapedia feels about trivia sections but this one seemed unimportant so I removed it.

'''Megaman''', known as Rockman (ロックマン, Rokkuman) in Japan, is the first video game in a long running series developed and published by Capcom in 1987 for the [[Nintendo]] Entertainment System/Famicom. It stars the titular hero Megaman, a boy robot created by Dr. Light to defeat Dr. Wily and his six Robot Masters. Using his Mega Buster, Megaman travels to various themed locales defeating the Robot Masters and receiving their weapons along the way. It revolutionized platform gaming at the time with selectable stages, selectable weapons, and music still lauded to this day.

It was later released on Mega Man: The Wily Wars for [[Sega Genesis]], as well as the [[Japanese]] collection game, Rockman Complete Works in 1999 for the [[Sony PlayStation]]. In 2004, it was re-released in the anthology game, Mega Man Anniversary Collection for the [[GameCube]], [[Xbox]], and [[PlayStation 2]]. There is also a remake called Mega Man Powered Up (Rockman Rockman in Japan) for the PlayStation Portable. It features full 3D graphics (while maintaining it's classic 2D gameplay) and extra stages were added, making the Robot Master count eight instead of the original six. It also features a stage level editor. The characters were rendered in a "super deformed" art style(with overly large heads and short extremities). Keiji Inafune claimed in an interview that he originally planned to make Mega Man look this way, but couldn't, due to the hardware restraints of the [[NES]]

[[category:Video Games]]

Battle of Fair Oaks

2010-04-21T02:11:33Z

MartinS: minor spelling fix

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Battle of Fair Oaks
|-
|Fought
|May - June 1862
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate Army of Northern Virginia
|-
|Commander
|GEN [[Joseph E. Johnston]]
|-
|
|GEN [[Gustavus Smith]]
|-
|
|GEN [[Robert E. Lee]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Army of Northeastern Virginia
|-
|Commander
|GEN [[George B. McClellan]]
|-
|}

The '''Battle of Fair Oaks''' was a battle in the [[American Civil War]], which lasted from May to June, 1862. It happened when General [[Joseph Johnston]] made plans to stop the advancing armies of General [[George McClellan]]. The actual attack did little to change the positions of either army. During the engagement, General Johnston was wounded and General Gustavus Smith took brief command. President [[Jefferson Davis]] replaced him with General [[Robert E. Lee]]. The battle ended indecisively. <ref> [[Civil War: Battles and Leaders]], edited by Aaron R. Murray, DK Publishing Inc., 2004, pp. 34-35. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[American Civil War: 1862]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fair Oaks, Battle of}}
[[Category: American Civil War Battles]]