Andy, there are some explanations for butterfly migration other than God Did It. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1272477 Here's an article]. [http://www.livescience.com/animals/050504_butterfly_navigation.html Here's another]. [http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2005/05/04/how_monarch_butterflies_are_wired_for_navigation.html And another]. You can't simply declare that no evidence exists. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I have often found that if you ask someone randomly which way is south they'll be able to 'feel' more or less which is south and hence north etc.
I think we (humans) have that ability but it is sooooo slight you dont pay attention to it and it is not needed for our survival.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

You don't have to 'feel' it. All you need to do is look up and see where the sun is. [[User:Samething|Samething]] 21:42, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Yes aside from that. You're splitting hairs. Nevermind.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:07, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Animal migration

2008-03-05T02:15:33Z

MetcalfeM:

Talk:Animal migration

2008-02-26T23:43:47Z

MetcalfeM:

Fine, let's add some citations. No one seriously doubts that [[liberal grading]] occurs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:As undeniable as [[liberal bias]], [[liberal tricks]] and [[liberal hypocrisy]] - well, actually, [[liberals]] probably do [[liberal denial|deny]] those, haha. :-) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Indeed they do deny it, along with the long list at [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Parody ==

This page was created as a parody, and I don't think that we should have it. While I do believe that some teachers would actually grade like that, I think that it is rare enough to not warrant it's own page. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Looking at the edit history, it would seem that Aschlafly might disagree. Indeed. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:What evidence do you have that it was created as a parody? It doesn't read any differently than many of the other liberal behavior essays on the site. Many editors have contributed to it including Andy who clearly doesn't see it as a parody. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:30, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Many teachers grade like that. In a mere 5 minutes I found a clear example. If you researched it, then I'm confident you could find others. And the reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Ask ''any'' [[conservative]] student who has taken classes from many [[liberal]] outside of pure math and science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Your example is not grading students based on political views. It is an example of teachers rushing to judgement and punishing students for a crime they did not commit. there is nothing liberal about it. Oh, and i have taken classes from liberal teachers. In fact I got an A when I probably deserved a B. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, I agree with you that this is a real issue and a serious one at that. If a student wants to write a conservative essay about the role of a conservative economic policy, then the essay should be judged on its style and merits and shouldn't be graded down purely because of an ideological disagreement. The question is whether or not the article as it was originally written was a parody. Tim seems to think so. Indeed, so much so that he blocked the original author. Where's the evidence for this being a parody? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::discussion witnessed at another wiki which is not allowed to be named here. I would post you a diff, but that would not be allowed either. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::: I don't know -- or care -- whether a parodist contributed to the entry. Often the truth is ridiculed and parodied. I do know that [[liberal grading]] is a real problem and the student was not downgraded at Duke because anyone seriously thought he was a criminal. He had not even been charged with a crime. He was downgraded as a pure result of [[liberal grading]], because the student had done something [[politically incorrect]]. And that was an example I found in a mere 5 minutes on the internet. Have others here done as much research?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::What did the student do that was "politically incorrect"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::You also have yet to explain how the grading was liberal. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Oh come now, you've been here long enough to know the score. The "politically incorrect act" was rape, because - you know - mentioning what the person was actually accused of might weaken the case just a wee bit. The grading was liberal because EVERY professor at a major university is a liberal, QED. It's best not to argue the toss, because otherwise ''someone'' is 95% certain to question your position on school prayer to avoid having to actually present a rational argument. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Well you know, Andy I see what you mean when you say Liberal grading - and I do believe that grades on papers will occasionally be bumped up if the paper represents a view that agrees with the teacher (and let's face it - a lot of public school teachers are liberal); but at the same time, I don't think it's significant enough or frequent enough for an encyclopedia article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Do you believe ''any'' of the "liberal x" articles deserve an entry? I think there's a reason why Britannica doesn't have an article on [[Liberal style]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Liberal tricks]], [[Liberal obfuscation]], [[Liberal logic]], [[Liberal tools]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal Myths]], [[Liberal hypocrisy]], [[Liberal hysteria]], [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Hollywood values]], and that reason isn't liberal censorship of "conservative facts" --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== Hysteria ==

I have to say Aschlafly that all these liberal articles sound almost like conservative hysteria. Liberalism is just an political ideology. You seem to make out that people with liberal views are monsters with one aim - to bring down society. To cheat, to lie, deny and destroy. Liberals are just like other people. No more deceitful than the next person. I live in a liberal country and while I dont agree with some of the laws round here everyone seems happy and life ticks along quite nicely.
You dont need to agree with liberalism but you also dont need to panic about it.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:54, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: The only people who are in "panic" are the [[liberals]] who talk, talk, talk and even vandalize this site. There is no "panic" by [[conservatives]] here. We do tell the truth, and the panic is by [[liberals]] in response to that truth. It makes them uncomfortable and they are not used to hearing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: AAAAAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!!! *runs around in ever decreasing circles* --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)

While I neither agree nor disagree with what you have stated above Andy (I hope using the informal "Andy is OK) all the [[liberal]] this and [[liberal]] that on this site sounds like [[conservative hysteria]]. An article on any other wiki on [[conservative hysteria]] could use conservapedia as a reference. I am aware that this is a conservative site and, as such, will point to liberal failings however the sheer number of anti-liberal content is bordering on paranioa. Articles like [[liberal friendship]] etc are a little out there.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Consider his grades?==

This is a point that hasn't been fully mentioned yet: Dowd didn't exactly have stellar grades. With the grade based on three papers and class participation (probably 30%+30%+30%+10% breakdown) then going into the final paper with a C+ and C- record is a rather unsure matter. The second grade is also lower, which is may suggest he was not improving with the material. If he bombed the final paper for some reason (even if he was just occupied by all the coverage of the incident), he would have easily fallen into D territory, maybe even F if it was particularly bad. At most colleges I know, a D is still not a passing grade. I don't see that the evidence points clearly enough to the bias of the professor. I suggest adding a clearer example, and tried to do so myself. But when I searched for the phrase "liberal grading", the articles all seem to talk about course evaluations and grade inflation, not liberal bias affecting grades. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T22:54:03Z

MetcalfeM:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-25T21:02:07Z

MetcalfeM:

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence".
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-02-24T01:46:56Z

MetcalfeM: /* Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? */

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

2008-02-20T02:13:10Z

MetcalfeM:

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]]
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]