Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Grand Canyon National Park

2007-08-16T12:20:37Z

Nedlum:

The '''Grand Canyon''' is a 277 mile long canyon in [[Arizona]] famed for its spectacular views. Young earth creationists believe that it was formed about 4500 years ago by rushing water after the [[Great Flood]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp</ref>
According to mainstream geology, however, the canyon is about 6 million years old, cut slowly by continual erosion from the Colorado River. <ref>http://www.nps.gov/grca/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Benjamin Franklin

2007-07-22T20:57:11Z

Nedlum: redoganization

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706, [[Boston]] – April 17, 1790 [[Philadelphia]]), was a printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, and is today considered one of America's [[Founding Fathers]].

==Biography==

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, ''"From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and increased his fortune when he was contracted to outfit all the ships in the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, he did question some of the Crown’s actions. In 1754, he proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which would have united the colonies (and the Iroquois League as well) under a Royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Many of the colonies did not send representatives to Albany, and nothing came of the plan.

Franklin put his prestige on the line to assist the expedition of British general Edward Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) from the French. Pennsylvania’s Quaker dominated legislature refused to help provide supplies for the expedition, so Franklin made an appeal for colonists to provide provisions, horses, and wagons for Braddock’s army. In his autobiography, Franklin recalled questioning Braddock about the expedition’s chances of success. Braddock assured him he would easily capture the fort. After the disaster that Braddock met on the Monongahela, Franklin was less sanguine about accepting professional military opinion.

In 1757, Franklin went to London to represent Pennsylvania in its quarrel with William Penn’s heirs (Pennsylvania was the last of the propriety colonies). He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775.

During Franklin’s tenure in England, he also represented several other colonies and became a regular observer, and unofficial representative of the colonies. In 1765, he assured British politicians that Americans would accept the Stamp Act, but news of colonial protest caused him to back away from that position. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed English attempts to tax the colonies.

Returning from England in 1775, Franklin surprised some by coming out in favor of independence. For Franklin, this stance carried a personal price. His son William, the Royal Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. In Paris, Franklin attracted attention by attending many of the salons and downplayed his status as Dr. Franklin. Instead, he sometimes cultivated the image of a rustic American, sometimes wearing a coonskin cap. Franklin's popularity helped in securing monetary and later military support from the Frence.

Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In ''Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania [sic]'', (1749) he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern."''

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, ''"those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both,"'' a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

==Religious Beliefs==

In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism in his youth.<ref>A year after Benjamin Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/] </ref> He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin remained a deist until the end of his life. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks they may have been corrupted over time.

As Franklin grew older, he recognized that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society. Yet he remained a deist. Franklin befriended George Whitefield, the best known of the Great Awakening evangelicals. The two also had a business relationship, with Franklin printing nearly all of Whitefield’s North American sermons. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the ''"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."''<ref>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.104-108</ref><ref>At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.</ref>

==In fiction and popular culture==
===''Ben and Me''===
Robert Lawson's 1939 book, ''Ben and Me: An Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin by His Good Mouse Amos,'' is a children's classic continuously in print since publication. It is written at level suitable for ages 10 and up, but is also enjoyed by adults. As the title indicates, the narrator is a mouse. Amos is not very respectful toward Franklin. He see Franklin as absent-minded, lacking in common sense, and barely able to take care of himself. According to Amos, it is Amos himself who inspired, and should be credited with most of Franklin's great inventions. Amos has nothing but scorn for Franklin's "Poor Richard" maxims:
:"'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a healthy, wealthy and wise!' ''Bah!'' When have you been ever been to bed early, or risen early, except when you've had insomnia? Yet you're healthy and wealthy."
:"Perhaps if I lived by the maxim I should also be—wise," he suggested, meekly.
:"That I doubt," I said. "it would require more than a maxim. A miracle, like."

In 1953, Walt Disney made a 20-minute animated short film from the book with Sterling Holloway as Amos, but it failed to capture the spirit of the story and did not even attempt to be faithful to the style of Lawson's illustrations.

In 2006, ''Ben and Me'' was selected for the annual "One Book, One Philadelphia" project, in honor of Franklin's 300th birthday.

== Occult and Illegal Activities ==

Benjamin Franklin was a [[Freemason]]. His investigation of the [[Hellfire Club]]<ref>[http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_02-06/031_leibniz_halle_rev.html Leibniz, Halle, and The American Revolution by Edward Spannaus]</ref> – a secret society that engaged in mockeries of religious ceremonies and debauchery<ref>[http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/hellfire.html The 'Hell Fire Club' Marjie Bloy Ph.D.]</ref> – may or may not have lead to his becoming a member.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm Benjamin Franklin, the Occult and The Elite]</ref> Certainly, his ongoing association with its notorious founder, [[Sir Francis Dashwood]], has been established.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vAkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22francis+dashwood%22+%22benjamin+franklin%22+*.org&source=web&ots=_DGAo2Lht3&sig=V6iHSWafbaISr32cdmUTZviz2qI Science and Society in Early America: Essays in Honor of Whitfield J. Bell, Jr. By Randolph SHIPLEY KLEIN]</ref>

In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin's London home dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the home,<ref>[http://benfranklin.tribe.net/thread/510cda6f-3ee8-4ef1-86b4-9525f4ed28c4]</ref> the remains showed signs of dissection, and are believed to be related to medical research of the time, performed on illegally acquired cadavers.<ref>[http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0998/0998gaz5.html Bones in the Basement of Franklin's London Digs]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}
[[category:political people]]

Partial birth abortion

2007-07-22T20:30:17Z

Nedlum:

'''Partial birth abortion''', also known by the medical term "Intact dilation and extraction", is a late-term [[Abortion|abortive procedure]] in which all of a fetus (except for the head) is removed from the womb through the [[cervix]] (the same pathway through which birth occurs; hence the name), and is then killed. The procedure is a relatively uncommon one, but has become an important battleground within the greater [[abortion controversy]]. <ref>http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml</ref>

Congress passed laws to ban the procedure in 1996 and 1997, but the bill was vetoed by [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], on the <ref>http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partbirthabortion.html</ref>. The United States Congress enacted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act <ref>http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html</ref> in 2003 and [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] signed it into law.

The Supreme Court upheld the ban by a 5 to 4 decision in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]], on 18 April 2007.

From PriestsForLife.org <ref>http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/supreme-court-pba-ban.pdf</ref> The ban prohibits:

<blockquote>"knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion...that is [not] necessary to save the life of the mother," 18 U.S.C. Section 1531(a). It defines "partial-birth abortion," Section 1531(b)(1), as a procedure in which the doctor: "(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the [mother's] body..., or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunck past the navel is outside the [mother's] body..., for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the fetus."</blockquote>

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Partial birth abortion

2007-07-22T20:28:34Z

Nedlum:

'''Partial birth abortion''', also known by the medical term "Intact dilation and extraction", is a late-term abortive procedure in which all of a fetus (except for the head) is removed from the womb through the [[cervix]] (the same pathway through which birth occurs; hence the name), and is then killed. The procedure is a relatively uncommon one, but has become an important battleground within the greater [abortion controversy]. <ref>http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml</ref>

Congress passed laws to ban the procedure in 1996 and 1997, but the bill was vetoed by [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], on the <ref>http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partbirthabortion.html</ref>. The United States Congress enacted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act <ref>http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html</ref> in 2003 and [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] signed it into law.

The Supreme Court upheld the ban by a 5 to 4 decision in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]], on 18 April 2007.

From PriestsForLife.org <ref>http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/supreme-court-pba-ban.pdf</ref> The ban prohibits:

<blockquote>"knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion...that is [not] necessary to save the life of the mother," 18 U.S.C. Section 1531(a). It defines "partial-birth abortion," Section 1531(b)(1), as a procedure in which the doctor: "(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the [mother's] body..., or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunck past the navel is outside the [mother's] body..., for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the fetus."</blockquote>

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Partial birth abortion

2007-07-22T20:28:13Z

Nedlum:

'''Partial birth abortion''', also known by the medical term "Intact dilation and extraction", is a late-term abortive procedure in which all of a fetus (except for the head) is removed from the womb through the [cervix] (the same pathway through which birth occurs; hence the name), and is then killed. The procedure is a relatively uncommon one, but has become an important battleground within the greater [abortion controversy]. <ref>http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml</ref>

Congress passed laws to ban the procedure in 1996 and 1997, but the bill was vetoed by [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], on the <ref>http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partbirthabortion.html</ref>. The United States Congress enacted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act <ref>http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html</ref> in 2003 and [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] signed it into law.

The Supreme Court upheld the ban by a 5 to 4 decision in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]], on 18 April 2007.

From PriestsForLife.org <ref>http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/supreme-court-pba-ban.pdf</ref> The ban prohibits:

<blockquote>"knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion...that is [not] necessary to save the life of the mother," 18 U.S.C. Section 1531(a). It defines "partial-birth abortion," Section 1531(b)(1), as a procedure in which the doctor: "(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the [mother's] body..., or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunck past the navel is outside the [mother's] body..., for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the fetus."</blockquote>

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Al Gore

2007-07-08T17:41:04Z

Nedlum: /* Campaign for the Presidency */

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Tipper Gore
|spouse2=
|religion=Baptist
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]](1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a journalist.

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues.

In 1992 he wrote ''Earth in the Balance'' and in May 2007 another of his books is set to be published, ''[[Assault on Reason]]''.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, [[2004]]]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in Boston,

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retreived from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the supposed climate crisis, "[[An Inconvenient Truth]]," which won an [[Oscar]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible [[2008]] presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al Gore October 2006.jpg|thumb|150 px|Al Gore at the XPrize Executive Summit, October 19, [[2006]]]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his alleged hypocrisy on environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore, Hypocrite]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

Michael Savage

2007-07-08T17:39:22Z

Nedlum:

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Alan Weiner''', Ph.D. (born March 31, 1942) (aka '''Michael Savage''') is a [[conservative]] talk show host. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He holds a Ph.D. in [[economics]] and [[medicinal botany]].

He is famous for making what some characterize as "inflammatory" statements. In 2003, Savage was fired from MSNBC, after telling a [[homosexual]] caller "I hope you get [[AIDS]] and die, you pig."<ref>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm</ref>

In 2007, he won the Freedom of Speech award from Talkers Magazine, a [talk radio] trade industry publication. He is currently contemplating running for President in 2008.

== Michael Savage & Politics ==
Savage takes credit for many sweeping changes in American politics. In the early weeks of June, Savage spent almost every minute of his show lambasting George W. Bush's proposed immigration reform bill. He takes credit<ref>Monday, June 25 2007, "The Savage Nation," 750 KPRC (Houston).</ref> for the defeat of the bill.

Savage also takes credit for defeating the Dubai port deal.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

== Michael Savage & Religion ==
Savage is a deeply religions man. However, he is not a fan of organized religion. In a 2007 broadcast<ref>Wednesday, June 27 2007, "The Savage Nation," 750 KPRC (Houston).</ref>, Savage denounced organized religion, and any faith that professes to be the one way to God. He unfavorably compared fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalism Islam. He also expressed his belief that all religions that teach morality from God are good. As a result, while Savage is a great spokesman for the conservative political viewpoint, he is seemingly not very favorable for Christians listeners.

==Michael Savage and GLBT Issues==

Savage is an avowed foe to homosexuality. He has referred to gay marriage as "child abuse"<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200702270015</ref> and claimed that the "gay and lesbian mafia" wants to "homosexualize the whole country" <ref>http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3258</ref>

== References ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT: Weiner, Michael Alan}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

The Da Vinci Code

2007-07-08T17:27:23Z

Nedlum: /* '''Plot Summary''' */ Tone changed.

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code makes some astounding assertions about Christianity that, if true, would uproot everything traditional Biblical Christianity stands for, and could potentially destroy the faith of millions. Although only a novel, Dan Brown creates the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched, even including a “fact page” in the beginning of the book and making references to numerous subsidizing “historical” sources, historians and scholars throughout.

In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) This statement alone proves that Dan Brown takes the content of his “novel” very seriously—so seriously in fact, that on the same interview he even described a religious-sounding experience he had while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”—by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. “Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) By its own author’s confession, The Da Vinci Code is far more than a mere work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]]—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]
Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, numerology(the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

==='''Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”'''===
----
While Dan Brown exalts Mary Magdalene to the point of goddess status, at the same time he ironically claims that the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, that Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God! This is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. According to Dan Brown, after Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but egotistical Peter took over, and Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. Peter’s goal was to suppress the truth about who Mary was.

This idea is inconsistent with Biblical record. You see, in all four of the Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. And the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this. Yes, in the censored, biased, chauvinistic Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to none other than the hated, demonized Mary Magdalene. It makes no sense at all. Perhaps if the Bible had been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown would have picked up on this logical inconsistency—but it is glaringly absent from his 30-item bibliography.

Instead, he relies on a sole passage from the Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of. (Welborn 69) None of the Gnostic gospels are traceable to a single person who knew Jesus. (Welborn 55) But even if it were a more credible source, this excerpt is taken out of context from the rest of the Gnostic gospels. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.” However, when a deeper look is taken, the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women; observe his remarkably “sexist” words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (which the evangelist equates with the female) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
If Brown had told the whole story, perhaps Sophie would not view the Gnostic Jesus as the “original feminist”. ("Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

==='''Part III: The Gnostics
[[category:book|Da Vinci Code]]

Date of creation

2007-07-08T17:15:11Z

Nedlum: /* Geological dating */ citation

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from Adam to Abraham, listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the date of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of [[Shem]] to [[Adam]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref> He further concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==
Based on [[geology|geological]] dating methods (which include certain assumptions which are questioned by creation scientists)<ref>For example, see Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf The Creation Answers Book, chapter 4], 2007</ref>, secular scientific research dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years ago.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007.</ref> According to the [[Big Bang Theory|Big Bang theory]], the universe began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. <ref>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe''</ref>

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

Methodological naturalism

2007-07-08T17:11:17Z

Nedlum:

'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy <ref>Roger Pennock declared that "science is not based upon a dogmatic ontological or metaphysical naturalism, but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, methodological manner." [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] </ref>
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. This kind of approach is the result of application of the epistemology of either of the empirical philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a methodology developed without first establishing the ontological principles of the world) is unfounded. This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the Intelligent Design Programme instead. Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently atheistic, since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner. Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicity of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is disingenuous.

According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm</ref>
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. <ref>"The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame </ref>

Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [Philosophical naturalism]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies, because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically. And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]

==Notes==

<references/>
[[category:philosophy]]

Old Earth Creationism

2007-07-08T16:58:22Z

Nedlum:

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to an exegesis of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>. Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood. Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

Proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, and Norman Geisler. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationists point out that there are over one hundred million identified and catalogued [[fossils]] currently in the world's museums.<ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos06.htm</ref>
Creationist insists that if [[macroevolution]] happened, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record that show the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links". If creationism is true then there should be a lack of transitional forms or at the very least there should be merely a handful of disputed transitional fossils.

Charles Darwin himself stated that the evolutionary theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." <ref>http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm</ref> However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." <ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".<ref>http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html</ref> Darwin's theory of evolution required that transitional forms exist. As Charles Darwin became older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence in regards to the fossil record. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html</ref>

Scientist Dr.[[Michael Denton]] wrote regarding the fossil record:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.<ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientists state that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001</ref> Noted anthropologist [[Edmund Ronald Leach]] stated, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."<ref>http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241</ref>

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…" wrote David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088</ref>

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed:

:"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]]. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2</ref>

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41</ref>

This is the basis for there being two major divisions of evolutionary theory, ''[[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibrium]]'' and ''[[Gradualism|gradualism]]''. Gould is the best known proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, [[Richard Dawkins]] is a advocate of gradualism.

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "[[Stephen Gould|Gould]] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote56</ref>

One of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is [[Archaeopteryx]]. Dr. [[Alan Feduccia]], a world authority on birds who believes that birds evolved from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a minority position), has claimed that “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref>

Creationist scientists have criticized the idea that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/321/]</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/]</ref>

A second famous alleged transitional fossil is [[Tiktaalik]], held to be a transitional species between fish and amphibian. Creationists have objected to this as well. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2962/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp</ref>

== The Fossil Record and the Creationist Position ==

Some creationists cite quotations (rather than evidence), asserting that no solid fossil evidence for the [[macroevolution]]ary position exists and claiming that the fossil record instead supports creationism:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at [[Oxford University]]), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html</ref>

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. <ref>http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm</ref>

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html</ref>

For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes]

== Mutations, Natural Selection, and the Life Sciences in General ==
Creationist scientists believe that [[mutation|mutations]] and [[natural selection]] would not cause macroevolution to happen. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref> Additionally, creationist scientists state that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the evolutionary model. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp</ref>

== Creationism, Macroevolutionary Theory, and Experimental Data ==

Noted creationist Dr. [[Henry Morris]] in order to show that the macroevolutionary position is not verified by experimental data quoted a leading evolutionist regarding this matter.

Dr. Morris wrote the following:

"Even [[Ernst Mayr]], the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at [[Harvard University|Harvard]], who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

== Implausibility of [[Materialism|Materialist]] Explanations ==

Dr. Norman Geisler wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of evolution." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationist scientists often assert that evolutionary scientists regularly employ extremely implausible explanations to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.

For example, Darwin in his Origin of the Species wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he wrote the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." <ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist often quote the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor [[Richard Lewontin]] admitted the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil 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." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31 <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp#r1</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of evolutionary explanations:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution ([[Saltationism|saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Dr. Safarti continues:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite 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>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes: the [[Bacteria|bacterial]] [[flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>,
[[homing]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/ants.asp</ref>, the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>, [[migration]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/migration.asp</ref>, the [[whale]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>, the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4340</ref>, the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>, the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref> and various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>

Lastly, creationists often quote biochemist [[Michael Behe]] who wrote the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
</blockquote>

== Statements of Design ==

Creationist often cite the work of [[intelligent design]] proponents who assert the biological world has the strong appearance of being created as can been below:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]] <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

== Scientific Journals ==
Advocates of the macroevolutionary position have often claimed that those who oppose the macroevolution position don't publish their opposition to the macroevolutionary position in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

==Controversy==
=== Creationism and Intelligent Design ===
Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths have points of agreement and disagreement with the intelligent design movement. They agree that the natural world has an intelligent cause and was designed but some also believe that the intelligent design movement divorces the Creator from creation by not explicitly stating that the cause of creation is a supernatural being and also failing to state explicitly who that supenatural being is.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist [[Paul Nelson]], while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_17December2001.asp Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2007-07-08T16:41:27Z

Nedlum: /* Gould Quote */

What an economical article this is! How concise in argument, how clean in execution!
It contains 3 links to Old Earth Crationism, 1 to New, and some 30 or so words to paste it all together. And this little note of mine is the first in the Discussion Page of same. Marvellous. If only all entries could follow this lead, the entire Conservapedia would fit on a floppy disk. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gould Quote ==

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. [[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2007-07-08T16:41:11Z

Nedlum: Gould Quote

Dreamtime

2007-07-08T16:32:34Z

Nedlum: Not sure this is a correct interpretation of the myth, but at least it flows somewhat better now.

The Dreamtime is a term used to describe the Australian aboriginal Creation myth. According to the myth, durring the Dreamtime both the world and the Earth goddess were asleep. Out of the Earth Goddess's dream arose the earth, moon and sun. The dream continued until the earth was populated with [[kangaroos]], [[wallabies]], and all other manner of [[flora]] and [[fauna]]. When the earth goddess was done dreaming, she arose to find that she had created the universe, but that it was lacking in one essential component. So she thought for exactly six thousand years and eventually created man out of the clay from a river. Man then copulated with the earth goddess to create the first woman.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-08T16:17:04Z

Nedlum: Outdated "Missing Facts" articles

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)