Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:PhilipM

2010-12-29T20:06:37Z

PhilipM: /* Indentation */ reply

{{welcome}}

Hi Philip - thanks for signing up for my Bible class! By the way, I noticed you only joined Conservapedia yesterday - just curious, how and where did you first learn about Conservapedia? --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:52, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

Hi TeacherEd! Thanks for letting me sign up quite late, and sorry my first homework assignment is a bit late - I have had trouble editing the page (and this one!). Thanks for the excellent lecture, I don't have a great deal of spare time, but have specifically made time for something as important as the Bible!
PS. I found conservapedia after searching for unbiased articles on one of my favorite scientists, [[Michael Behe]]. After finishing your lecture I've been reading up on the history of the conservative Bible project, I think it is an excellent project, and the modern language brings exciting clarity to the original message. I hope to contribute myself when time allows. [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 16:29, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

== Indentation ==

Hi Phillip,

I quickly fixed the indentation on your comment on [[User_talk:Aschlafly|this page]] just to distinguish your comment from mine without much difficulty. No complaint about the comment or the format, just a quick little copy edit on my part, in case you wonder about my edit. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:01, 29 December 2010 (EST)

:Hi Tyler, thanks for fixing the formatting. However I went back to amend my post and added an extra indent, without noticing that you had already fixed it! I fixed it again now, thanks for keeping an eye on me! [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 15:06, 29 December 2010 (EST)

Design detection

2010-12-29T18:40:09Z

PhilipM: detecting design in nature

'''Design detection''' is the science of how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. It is used in a number of scientific fields, including [[anthropology]], [[archeology]], forensic sciences, [[cryptanalysis]] and the [[Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence|search for extraterrestrial intelligence]].<ref>http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025</ref> An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

Advances in engineering design and similar concepts have resulted in [[design detection]] methods advancing such that many [[microbiologist]]s and [[biochemist]]s now feel that the detection of [[design]] in nature is evidence within itself to disprove [[evolution]].

For example, [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the [[Discovery Institute]], notes at idthefuture.com [http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/a_note_to_teachers_part_3_science_and_th.html] the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Intelligent design]]
[[Category:Science]]

The Edge of Evolution

2010-12-19T01:49:20Z

PhilipM: add cat

'''The Edge of Evolution''', subtitled ''The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'', is a 2007 book written by respected biochemist Dr [[Michael Behe]] of the [[Discovery Institute]]. In the book Dr Behe explains that while evolution may be able to produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of [[Darwinism]] to generate diversity, and this limit (described as the "edge of evolution") lies between species and orders. Behe goes on to show that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot possibly be responsible for the observed diversification from the common ancestor, therefore only the actions of an [[intelligent design]]er can adequately explain the diversity and wonders of life we see.

[[Evolutionist]]s have tried unsuccessfully to refute Dr Behe's findings and arguments, although some have broken ranks and reluctantly admitted that many of Behe's arguments are troubling to the evolutionism position.

== See also ==

* [[Darwin’s Black Box]]

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Creation science]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Darwin’s Black Box

2010-12-19T01:48:35Z

PhilipM: add cats and template

'''''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution''''' is a 1996 book written by scientist [[Michael Behe]] in which he argues that many biochemical systems are [[irreducible complexity|irreducibly complex]]. This means in order to function in their current form, they could not have had precursors in their development. No series of intermediary steps could have achieved a working result. Therefore, by logical process of elimination, they must be the result of [[intelligent design]] rather than having occurred through a natural [[evolution|evolutionary]] processes.

Several examples are cited. The modern movement for intelligent design was given a strong boost from Behe's book.

== See also ==

* [[The Edge of Evolution]]

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Creation science]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Darwin’s Black Box

2010-12-19T01:47:35Z

PhilipM: link to other works

The Edge of Evolution

2010-12-19T01:46:40Z

PhilipM: link to other works

'''The Edge of Evolution''', subtitled ''The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'', is a 2007 book written by respected biochemist Dr [[Michael Behe]] of the [[Discovery Institute]]. In the book Dr Behe explains that while evolution may be able to produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of [[Darwinism]] to generate diversity, and this limit (described as the "edge of evolution") lies between species and orders. Behe goes on to show that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot possibly be responsible for the observed diversification from the common ancestor, therefore only the actions of an [[intelligent design]]er can adequately explain the diversity and wonders of life we see.

[[Evolutionist]]s have tried unsuccessfully to refute Dr Behe's findings and arguments, although some have broken ranks and reluctantly admitted that many of Behe's arguments are troubling to the evolutionism position.

== See also ==

* [[Darwin’s Black Box]]

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Creation science]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Soccer

2010-12-19T01:44:15Z

PhilipM: dishonest behavior for financial gain

[[Image:2010 World Cup.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Pictured is a star Polish-born player competing for the highly ranked German team during the 2010 World Cup]]
'''Soccer''' is a popular sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot. Outside the USA, it is generally called "football" (Spanish: ''fútbol'').
In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area. The goal of the game is to kick the ball into the opposing team's goal; each goal gives that team a point and the team with the most points at the end of the 90 minute game is the winner.

==Rules of the Game==
[[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|right|thumb|300px|left|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]
The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a break known as half-time which according to the rules of the game must last less than 20 minutes. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. If a player is injured then the [[referee]] makes up that lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as [[stoppage]] or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in knockout cup games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. In some competitions, the first goal in this period (golden goal) wins the game. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a [[penalty shootout]]. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a [[grass]] (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. The side scoring the most goals is the winner. Infringements include playing the ball with any part of the body other than the feet or head; pushing or blocking an opposing player and stepping outside the playing area while the ball is in play.

Accuracy in kicking is very important to make sure that one can kick the ball around opponents, manage it in tight spaces, and make long passes to other players in better positions. Expert players have trained to kick from a variety of angles, both forward and back and to the side, and also to use their chests and heads to maneuver a high-flying ball.

==Origins==

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "As<u>soc</u>iation Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|<u>rug</u>by]]. Football games have been popular in [[England]] since the [[middle ages]], but the modern game of soccer derives from formalizations of the rules during the mid nineteenth century. The [[Football Association]] (FA) was founded in 1863 and continues to be the game's governing body within the [[UK]]. "Association Football" (later shortened to soccer) meant the version of football approved by the Football Association's rules. The rules were published at [[Cambridge University]] in 1847, as many private schools were playing each other with different rules. In the middle ages the game had no rules. The match was played between villages and the goals were in each village. The game was often violent and was banned by [[Edward III]] and [[Henry IV]] not for its violence but as it distracted archers from military work. Medieval football is still played in the East Midland city of [[Derby]] on [[Shrove Tuesday]].

==Soccer Around the World==
[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In most countries it is the most popular sport or at least among the most popular (the [[United States]] being a notable exception). Though it is often not a high-scoring game, its popularity comes from the often dramatic saves from goalkeepers and incredible shots from skilled players in attempts to score a goal. In the United States soccer was associated with communism during the Thirties, as several communist organizations used soccer in an attempt to recruit recent European immigrants to their cause.

Every four years there is an international competition known as the [[World Cup]], where countries send their best players to compete for the title of best national soccer team. Every four years in Europe there is the European Championship in June and July when the leagues finish which is a 16 team competition for members of UEFA, the European governing body. Each other continent also has a competition, such as the African Nations Cup, which is every two years in January.

Many soccer fans are extremely passionate about their favorite teams, traveling to other countries to support them. Several countries have had problems controlling over-excited fans, with the crowd sometimes spilling onto the pitch, fighting with themselves, disliked referees and even players. [[England]] once had a poor reputation from its soccer [[hooligan]]s who got into drunken fistfights with fans of other teams. This situation has largely changed, with much better behavior at English football matches and considerably increased violence in several other countries, especially [[Italy]].

In most European countries each large town will have at least one football team who play in leagues, which last August to May in most of Europe but March to October in others. Unlike most American sports, the top teams in each league go up a league to be replaced by the last teams in the league above. The top teams in the top division of each European country enter the UEFA Champions League, a league and knockout competition played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays around the season.

==Soccer and socialism==

The nature and rules of soccer very much resemble [[socialism]] in many ways:<ref>http://blog.american.com/?p=16158</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/soccer_the_perfect_socialist_s.html</ref>

* The "no hands" rule can be compared to socialist tax policies.
* The "off-sides" rule prohibits using certain aggressive ("unfair") tactics in the game.
* The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed [[global warming]].
* Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries.
* The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual.
* The World Cup trophy resembles [[Hollywood values|socialist Hollywood's]] Emmy Award.
* In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game.
* Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals.
* [[Union]] [[strikes]], even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer.
* Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.
* Participants are known to behave dishonestly and illegally and act against the interests of their team in order to gain financially themselves.<ref>http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/62773.html</ref>

==Great Players==

* [[Ferenc Puskas]], a forward for [[Real Madrid]] and [[Hungary]] in the 1950s, introduced 'total football' and destroyed the old-fashioned English team of the time.
* [[Lev Yashin]] of the USSR in the 1960s is reputed to be the best-ever goalkeeper.
* [[Pele]], [[Brazil]]ian player active from 1956-1974, often considered to be the greatest soccer player to ever kick the ball.
* [[Alfredo di Stéfano]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder who played for [[Real Madrid]]. considered by Maradona to be the greatest.
* [[Bobby Moore]], captain of England in the 1966 World Cup Finals and one of the finest ever center halves.
* [[George Best]], of [[Manchester United]] and [[Northern Ireland]] in the 1960s, was possibly the best player never to have played in the World Cup Finals.
* [[Franz Beckenbauer]] played for [[West Germany]] in the 1960s and 70s. Defenders rarely gain the limelight in football but Beckenbauer's performances against the great teams of England in 1970 and Holland in 1974 were exceptional.
* [[Johann Cruyff]], captain of Holland in 1974 and 1978: why his Dutch team's brand of Total Football never won them the World Cup is an enduring mystery.
* [[Diego Maradona]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder of the 1980s, often mentioned alongside Pele as one of the greatest.
* [[Zinedine Zidane]], [[French]] player, retired shortly after the World Cup final match between France and [[Italy]] in 2006.
* [[Cristiano Ronaldo]], a [[Portuguese]] contemporary player for [[Real Madrid]].
* [[Lionel Messi]], [[Argentina]]n forward, currently plays for [[Barcelona]].

==A note on terminology==

{{football meaning}} In many other languages, a [[phonics|phonetic]] equivalent to the English word "football," such as the Portuguese word "futbol" is used to denote the sport.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

William Dembski

2010-12-06T17:53:54Z

PhilipM: format

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''William Albert Dembski''' (born July 18, 1960), Ph.D., is a [[mathematician]] and [[philosopher]]. He earned his doctorate in mathematics from the [[University of Chicago]] in 1988, and also earned a master of divinity degree from [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, and has taught at [[Northwestern University]], the [[University of Notre Dame]], and the [[University of Dallas]]. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at [[MIT]], in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at [[Princeton University]].

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. His chief insight has been to observe that design may be inferred with a reasonable degree of confidence if origins other than design have very small probabilities.

*William Dembski is a senior fellow with Seattle's [[Discovery Institute]]. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in the post-[[Darwinian]] context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the ''New York Times''. He has made frequent television appearances. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/about</ref>

He wrote:
*[[materialism|Materialistic]] ideology has subverted the study of [[biological]] and [[cosmological]] [[origin debate|origins]] so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that [[science]] is being used illegitimately to promote a [[materialistic world view]], but that this world view is actively undermining [[scientific inquiry]], leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, [[intelligent design]] (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
==Selected books==
*[http://www.amazon.com/Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence-Biological/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems] (with [[Jonathan Wells]]).
*[http://www.amazon.com/How-Intellectually-Fulfilled-Atheist-Not/dp/1933859849 How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not)] (with [[Jonathan Wells]]).

== See also ==

*[[Discovery Institute]]
*[[Michael Behe]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Uncommon Descent -The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends]

== References ==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dembski, William}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:Creation Scientists]]
[[Category:Theologians]]

William Dembski

2010-12-06T17:52:46Z

PhilipM: add category and see also

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''William Albert Dembski''' (born July 18, 1960), Ph.D., is a [[mathematician]] and [[philosopher]]. He earned his doctorate in mathematics from the [[University of Chicago]] in 1988, and also earned a master of divinity degree from [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, and has taught at [[Northwestern University]], the [[University of Notre Dame]], and the [[University of Dallas]]. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at [[MIT]], in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at [[Princeton University]].

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. His chief insight has been to observe that design may be inferred with a reasonable degree of confidence if origins other than design have very small probabilities.

*William Dembski is a senior fellow with Seattle's [[Discovery Institute]]. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in the post-[[Darwinian]] context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the ''New York Times''. He has made frequent television appearances. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/about</ref>

He wrote:
*[[materialism|Materialistic]] ideology has subverted the study of [[biological]] and [[cosmological]] [[origin debate|origins]] so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that [[science]] is being used illegitimately to promote a [[materialistic world view]], but that this world view is actively undermining [[scientific inquiry]], leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, [[intelligent design]] (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
==Selected books==
*[http://www.amazon.com/Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence-Biological/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems] (with [[Jonathan Wells]]).
*[http://www.amazon.com/How-Intellectually-Fulfilled-Atheist-Not/dp/1933859849 How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not)] (with [[Jonathan Wells]]).

== See also ==

[[Discovery Institute]]
[[Michael Behe]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Uncommon Descent -The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends]

== References ==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dembski, William}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Creation Scientists]]
[[Category:Theologians]]

Dr Michael Behe

2010-12-06T17:02:03Z

PhilipM: Redirected page to Michael Behe

#REDIRECT [[Michael Behe]]

Dr. Michael Behe

2010-12-06T17:00:23Z

PhilipM: Redirected page to Michael Behe

#REDIRECT [[Michael Behe]]

Talk:Essay:Genesis (evolutionist version)

2010-12-04T22:50:09Z

PhilipM: Created page with "Would it be possible to add this essay to Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution‎? I tried to but the page is protected (I guess a lot of the resources listed..."

Would it be possible to add this essay to [[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution‎]]? I tried to but the page is protected (I guess a lot of the resources listed there have been repeatedly deleted by atheists?) and when I clicked the talkpage tab my browser loaded a different article (do other people get that or is it a problem with my browser?) Thank you. [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:50, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Richard Dawkins and debate

2010-12-04T19:42:06Z

PhilipM: rejected Dr Behe's challenges

[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
[[Atheist]] and [[evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] has developed a reputation for ducking debates with strong debate opponents.

Below are some resources concerning this matter:

*[[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]]

*[[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] ('''Denied debating him''' after losing video taped debate, refuses to debate another time)

In addition, respected biochemist and [[intelligent design]] researcher Dr [[Michael Behe]] has openly challenged prominent [[evolutionist]]s and proponents of [[Darwinism]] to debate him regarding the many failings of [[evolutionism]], yet [[Richard Dawkins]] - one of the most outspoken [[Darwinist]]s today - has declined all such invitations.

== See also ==
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Atheism and Debate]]
*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]] - [[satire]]
*[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters|This year's best atheist debaters]] - satire

== External links ==
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/will-william-lane-craig-debate-richard-dawkins Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?]

[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]

Pseudoscientific

2010-11-28T18:22:20Z

PhilipM: Redirected page to Pseudoscience

#REDIRECT [[Pseudoscience]]

Michael Behe

2010-11-28T18:21:32Z

PhilipM: add wikilinks

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]]. His books include ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', which both highlight the inherent problems with [[evolution]]ary theory and present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]], are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this [[evidence]] that the [[flagellum]] must have been [[design]]ed.

Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of [[DNA]] structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]] before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.<ref name="Behe">http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp</ref>

Behe observed:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature 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." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe has a skeptical view of the [[pseudoscientific]] idea of "common descent":

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

It is common for [[evolutionists]] to engage in [[Liberal name-calling|namecalling]] against Behe, to which he responds:<ref name="Behe"/>

{{cquote|In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are.}}

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Creation scientists]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Michael Behe

2010-11-28T18:14:21Z

PhilipM: typo

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]]. His books include ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', which both highlight the inherent problems with [[evolution]]ary theory and present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]], are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of DNA structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]] before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.<ref name="Behe">http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp</ref>

Behe observed:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature 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." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe has a skeptical view of ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

It is common for [[evolutionists]] to engage in namecalling against Behe, to which he responds:<ref name="Behe"/>

{{cquote|In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are.}}

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Creation scientists]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Michael Behe

2010-11-28T18:13:33Z

PhilipM: add categories

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]]. His books include ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', which both highlight the inherent problems with [[evolution]]ary theory and present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]], are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of DNA structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]] before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.<ref name="Behe">http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp</ref>

Behe observed:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature 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." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe has a skeptical view of ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

It is common for [[evolutionists]] to engage in namecalling against Behe, to which he responds:<ref name="Behe"/>

{{cquote|In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are.}}

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Creation scientist]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

FERTILE

2010-11-18T22:36:46Z

PhilipM: fixed references

FERTILE stands for Fetal Elimination for Reuse to Increase Life's Enjoyment. It is a Palo Alto, California-based medical organization that is funded by The Progressive Institute, a leftist think tank in Hungary.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/europe/13iht-hungary.html</ref>

FERTILE is most notorious for its practice of encouraging expecting parents of unborn down syndrome babies to choose abortions. They also claim to be able to create serums from the aborted children that increase resistance to the HIV virus, thus encouraging homosexual and promiscuous lifestyles.<ref>http://www.fertileonline.org/services.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

The Edge of Evolution

2010-11-14T16:17:37Z

PhilipM: add template

'''The Edge of Evolution''', subtitled ''The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'', is a 2007 book written by respected biochemist Dr [[Michael Behe]] of the [[Discovery Institute]]. In the book Dr Behe explains that while evolution may be able to produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of [[Darwinism]] to generate diversity, and this limit (described as the "edge of evolution") lies between species and orders. Behe goes on to show that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot possibly be responsible for the observed diversification from the common ancestor, therefore only the actions of an [[intelligent design]]er can adequately explain the diversity and wonders of life we see.

[[Evolutionist]]s have tried unsuccessfully to refute Dr Behe's findings and arguments, although some have broken ranks and reluctantly admitted that many of Behe's arguments are troubling to the evolutionism position.

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Creation science]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

The Edge of Evolution

2010-11-14T16:03:01Z

PhilipM: Created page with "'''The Edge of Evolution''', subtitled ''The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'', is a 2007 book written by Dr Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute. In the book Dr Be..."

'''The Edge of Evolution''', subtitled ''The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'', is a 2007 book written by Dr [[Michael Behe]] of the [[Discovery Institute]]. In the book Dr Behe explains that while evolution may be able to produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of [[Darwinism]] to generate diversity, and this limit (described as the "edge of evolution") lies between species and orders. Behe goes on to show that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot possibly be responsible for the observed diversification from the common ancestor, therefore only the actions of an intelligent designer can adequately explain the diversity and wonders of life we see.

[[Evolutionist]]s have tried unsuccessfully to refute Dr Behe's findings and arguments, although some have broken ranks and reluctantly admitted that many of Behe's arguments are troubling to the evolutionism position.

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Books]]

Evolutionist absurdities

2010-10-27T15:01:47Z

PhilipM: typo

[[Evolutionist]]s have made many absurd claims in efforts to shore up their [[theory]] and attempt to justify their [[atheist]]ic worldview and make up for their lack of belief in [[God]].

Here are some examples:

# That random [[mutation]]s can increase the information in the [[genome]].
# That organic matter can spontaneously form from inorganic matter.
# That the age of the [[Earth]] is in the order of billions of years, despite [[Counterexamples to an old earth|overwhelming evidence]] to the contrary.<ref>This is an important absurdity that evolutionists cling to as the time frames needed for things to 'evolve' is enormous. It was not until [[Charles Darwin]] proposed his theory that atheistic scientists began postulating ever increasing ages of the Earth in order to give space for [[Darwinism]].</ref>
# That incredibly complex organs such as the [[eye]] could be created by random chance.
# That [[man]] is simply another wild [[animal]], with no divine [[soul]] or purpose; just an accident of chance.
# That [[Irreducible Complexity|irreducibly complex]] organs and biological mechanism could form gradually, even though without just one component part such mechanisms are useless.

== See also ==

* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
* [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

{{evolution}}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category: Evolution]]
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Evolutionist absurdities

2010-10-27T15:00:40Z

PhilipM: Will research further and add more examples (Hope to get extra credit from TeachedEd too!)

[[Evolutionist]]s have made many absurd claims in efforts to shore up their [[theory]] and attempt to justify their [[atheist]]ic worldview and make up for their lack of belief in [[God]].

Here are some examples:

# That random [[mutation]]s can increase the information in the [[genome]].
# That organic matter can spontaneously form from inorganic matter.
# That the age of the [[Earth]] is in the order of billions of years, despite [[Counterexamples to an old earth|overwhelming evidence]] to the contrary.<ref>This is in important absurdity that evolutionists created as the time frames needed for things to 'evolve' is enormous. It was not until [[Charles Darwin]] proposed his theory that atheistic scientists began postulating ever increasing ages of the Earth in order to give space for [[Darwinism]].</ref>
# That incredibly complex organs such as the [[eye]] could be created by random chance.
# That [[man]] is simply another wild [[animal]], with no divine [[soul]] or purpose; just an accident of chance.
# That [[Irreducible Complexity|irreducibly complex]] organs and biological mechanism could form gradually, even though without just one component part such mechanisms are useless.

== See also ==

* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
* [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

{{evolution}}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category: Evolution]]
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Essay:Genesis (evolutionist version)

2010-10-27T14:44:56Z

PhilipM: Added categories and template

In the beginning, nothing created the heavens and the earth. Nothing was used to create the [[planet]]s and the [[star]]s, they simply appeared out of nothing.

The planet [[earth]] created itself, out of nothing, and just happened to be perfect for life. (This was quite lucky, as there was no life at this point - that would come from nothing later)

Nothing then created the beautiful landscapes on earth, with wonderful waterfalls and rolling hills appearing out of nothing.

Then came the ultimate creation from nothing - from nothing came life. Not only did this incredible feat involve nothing to create it, but it also appeared from nothing! With the nothing-to-life under way, it follows logically that the nothing-life managed to gather information and complexity from nothing, becoming more and more complex with each influx of nothingness.

Then nothing happened and a monkey grown from nothing gained even more complexity (from nothing) and Man was created! Man was given nothing in the way of divine guidance, nothing of a moral compass, and nothing of any meaning in his life. The nothing-monkey-man was just a wild animal, sharing only the soul of his fellow nothing relations such as apple trees and ants to zebras and zero - zero being nothing from whence we came!

{{evolution}}

[[Category: Evolution]]
[[Category: Essays]]

Bible Homework 2 Answers - Student Five

2010-10-22T16:16:44Z

PhilipM: Extra credit essay

1. Why do you think the serpent tried to tempt Eve, as opposed to Adam?
::The serpent was a sneaky, crafty, and [[deceit]]ful creature who realized that Eve would be easier to tempt than Adam. Adam received the command directly from [[God]] to avoid the forbidden tree, but Eve only received this second hand from Adam.

2. Why do you think God sometimes refers to Himself in the plural (e.g. "us") in Genesis? (Hint: Could the Old Testament be foreshadowing something here?)
::With the birth [[Jesus]] as the bodily manifestation of Jesus, it later became clear the [[God]] was truly a pluralistic entity - infinitely powerful and present everywhere (regardless of what [[atheist]]s might claim!), thus the references to Himself in the plural is completely consistent.

3. List one absurd and unverifiable claim that evolutionists make about the creation of the world.
::[[Evolutionist]]s claim that incredibly complex creations in nature such as a human [[eye]], a bird's wing, or the bacterium flagellum could have appeared by random chance. Advances in [[creation science]] have shown that [[irreducible complexity]] proves that not only is this absurd, but demonstrably impossible. Despite this, evolutionists continue to cling to such [[evolutionist absurdities]] as they are essential to their world view and their denial of [[God]]'s existence.

4. The rivers mentioned in the story of Adam & Eve suggest that the Garden of Eden was in what region of the world?
::The [[Garden of Eden]] appears to have been in [[Mesopotamia]], which lied between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. This area is now in modern-day [[Iraq]].

5. Early humans lived very long (for example, Adam lived 930 years). What passage in Genesis limits the current human lifespan to 120 years?
::[[Genesis]] 6:3 - ''The LORD said 'My spirit shall not continue this quarrel with man forever, because indeed he is sinful flesh. I give him one hundred twenty years more.' ''

Extra credit.
::[[Essay:Genesis_(evolutionist_version)]] [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 11:47, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

Essay:Genesis (evolutionist version)

2010-10-22T16:15:00Z

PhilipM: Hope to earn some extra credit!

Bible Homework 2 Answers - Student Five

2010-10-22T15:47:26Z

PhilipM: Homework answers

1. Why do you think the serpent tried to tempt Eve, as opposed to Adam?
::The serpent was a sneaky, crafty, and [[deceit]]ful creature who realized that Eve would be easier to tempt than Adam. Adam received the command directly from [[God]] to avoid the forbidden tree, but Eve only received this second hand from Adam.

2. Why do you think God sometimes refers to Himself in the plural (e.g. "us") in Genesis? (Hint: Could the Old Testament be foreshadowing something here?)
::With the birth [[Jesus]] as the bodily manifestation of Jesus, it later became clear the [[God]] was truly a pluralistic entity - infinitely powerful and present everywhere (regardless of what [[atheist]]s might claim!), thus the references to Himself in the plural is completely consistent.

3. List one absurd and unverifiable claim that evolutionists make about the creation of the world.
::[[Evolutionist]]s claim that incredibly complex creations in nature such as a human [[eye]], a bird's wing, or the bacterium flagellum could have appeared by random chance. Advances in [[creation science]] have shown that [[irreducible complexity]] proves that not only is this absurd, but demonstrably impossible. Despite this, evolutionists continue to cling to such [[evolutionist absurdities]] as they are essential to their world view and their denial of [[God]]'s existence.

4. The rivers mentioned in the story of Adam & Eve suggest that the Garden of Eden was in what region of the world?
::The [[Garden of Eden]] appears to have been in [[Mesopotamia]], which lied between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. This area is now in modern-day [[Iraq]].

5. Early humans lived very long (for example, Adam lived 930 years). What passage in Genesis limits the current human lifespan to 120 years?
::[[Genesis]] 6:3 - ''The LORD said 'My spirit shall not continue this quarrel with man forever, because indeed he is sinful flesh. I give him one hundred twenty years more.' ''

Extra credit.
::Coming soon! [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 11:47, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

Liberals Who Refuse To Debate

2010-10-13T19:24:35Z

PhilipM: see also

Here is a growing list of [[liberal]]s in tight races who refuse to debate their opponent, thereby depriving the public of learning their real positions on the issues:

*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Rick Boucher (Virginia)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Peter DeFazio (Oregon)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman John Dingell (Michigan)<ref>After a poll showed him trailing, Dingell said he would debate ... shortly before [[Election Day]], which he could cancel if he improves in the polls.</ref>
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Frank Pallone (New Jersey)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Charlie Wilson (Ohio)

*Governor and senatorial candidate Joe Manchin (West Virginia)<ref>Manchin refuses to debate his Republican opponent one-on-one, and instead agrees only to an unwieldy group debate including four candidates. [http://blogs.wvgazette.com/squawkbox/2010/10/03/did-manchin-refuse-to-debate-raese-one-on-one/]</ref>

*The [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] refuses to debate [[Creation science|creation scientists]], [[William Lane Craig]], and [[Dinesh D'Souza]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Instances_of_Richard_Dawkins_ducking_debates</ref> In addition, Dawkins refuses to debate Rabbi Boteach again [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|after losing a video taped debate with him and then claiming the debate never took place.]]

*Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|as they largely lost all their debates with creation scientists in the 1970s.]]
*[[Liberal]] [[evolutionist]] [[professor]] [[Richard Lenski]] has repeatedly refused to enter in to any dialogue regarding his claims to have "proven" [[Darwinism]].

== See also ==

* [[Liberal obfuscation]]

== References ==

<references/>

{{liberalism}}

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberals]]

User:PhilipM

2010-10-13T17:13:03Z

PhilipM: Created page with 'My name is Philip, I found conservapedia after searching for unbiased articles on one of my favorite scientists and authors, Michael Behe. I am enrolled on the [[Bible Lectu…'

My name is Philip, I found conservapedia after searching for unbiased articles on one of my favorite scientists and authors, [[Michael Behe]].

I am enrolled on the [[Bible Lectures]] course and hope to contribute to conservapedia wherever I can, my main areas of interest are:

*[[Intelligent design]]
*[[Creation science]]
*The general bias of the education system in favor of [[evolution]].
*The [[Bible]]

Liberals Who Refuse To Debate

2010-10-13T17:03:09Z

PhilipM: Added Richard Lenski as he refused to allow any debate regarding the validity of his work

Here is a growing list of [[liberal]]s in tight races who refuse to debate their opponent, thereby depriving the public of learning their real positions on the issues:

*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Rick Boucher (Virginia)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Peter DeFazio (Oregon)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman John Dingell (Michigan)<ref>After a poll showed him trailing, Dingell said he would debate ... shortly before [[Election Day]], which he could cancel if he improves in the polls.</ref>
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Frank Pallone (New Jersey)
*Pro-[[abortion]] congressman Charlie Wilson (Ohio)

*Governor and senatorial candidate Joe Manchin (West Virginia)<ref>Manchin refuses to debate his Republican opponent one-on-one, and instead agrees only to an unwieldy group debate including four candidates. [http://blogs.wvgazette.com/squawkbox/2010/10/03/did-manchin-refuse-to-debate-raese-one-on-one/]</ref>

*The [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] refuses to debate [[Creation science|creation scientists]], [[William Lane Craig]], and [[Dinesh D'Souza]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Instances_of_Richard_Dawkins_ducking_debates</ref> In addition, Dawkins refuses to debate Rabbi Boteach again [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|after losing a video taped debate with him and then claiming the debate never took place.]]

*Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|as they largely lost all their debates with creation scientists in the 1970s.]]
*[[Liberal]] [[evolutionist]] [[professor]] [[Richard Lenski]] has repeatedly refused to enter in to any dialogue regarding his claims to have "proven" [[Darwinism]].
== References ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberals]]

Skeptic

2010-10-11T21:34:59Z

PhilipM: Atheists aren't "skeptical" at all about their own beliefs!

A '''skeptic''' is one who questions the validity of a position until shown to their satisfaction that the position is warranted. The nature of what can convince a skeptic will vary from person to person. One whose philosophy on life leads them to be a skeptic by lifestyle is said to practice [[skepticism]].

The term "skeptic" is often abused in a religious context by [[atheists]] and [[agnostics]], claiming there is insufficient evidence of [[God]]'s existence but not being at all skeptical about their own atheistic beliefs for which there is no [[evidence]] at all.

"Doubting Thomas" in the [[Bible]] is an early example of a skeptic, as he did not believe that [[Jesus]] had risen until he saw Him with his own eyes and put his fingers in the wounds on Jesus' body.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Anti-Conservative bias

2010-10-10T21:09:30Z

PhilipM: link to hollywood values

“Conservatives are the new oppressed class,” he joked in his office. “Isn’t it bizarre that in Hollywood it’s easier to come out as gay than as conservative?”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=5#ixzz11zQbqWRr

== See also ==

[[Hollywood values]]

Bible Homework Two Answers - Student Five

2010-10-10T20:44:18Z

PhilipM: Better late than never! Thanks for the excellent lecture, TeacherEd!

1. What is your favorite book of the Bible? Why?

My personal favorite book is Genesis. In my opinion it is also the most important book as it accurately details the Creation. Without Genesis we would have no idea of our origins and would struggle to understand our history.

2. List all books contained in the Torah. Who are they traditionally considered to have been written by?

Moses is considered to have authored the books of the Torah, those being: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

3. Why do you think the Bible is translated? Why don't we just keep it in the original Hebrew and Greek?

Languages have developed significantly as Christianity has spread. Even the original Hebrew and Greek languages have changed a lot from when the original texts were written. To bring the Biblical message in its purest form to the largest audiences, it is essential to keep it pure, accurate, concise and understandable by everyone around the world.

4. Can a citizen of Greece today understand the original New Testament? Why or why not?

I would think that a modern Greek would struggle to understand the original NT texts, as the language has changed a lot since then. He may be able to grasp the basics, but I think a lot of the deeper meaning would be lost.

5. How is the process used in translating the Conservapedia Bible different from the process used for other translations? How do you think this improves the final product?

My understanding of the CBP is that is a collaborative effort consisting of a great many members of the public, all contributing openly. Traditional translations are done behind closed doors, and often by groups with strong agendas and biases. The CPB ensures that the true message of the Bible is enhanced without any distortion.

User talk:PhilipM

2010-10-10T20:29:26Z

PhilipM: reply to teacher Ed

Richard Lenski

2010-10-05T21:28:46Z

PhilipM: criticism of claims

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at [[Michigan State University]].<ref>Richard Lenski Biographical Sketch [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]</ref><ref>Richard Lenski Homepage [https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref> He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a [[doctorate]] in zoology<ref>Purpose in Evolution symposium Participants [http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Purpose_in_Evolution/part6.html]</ref> from the [[University of North Carolina]].<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref>
When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. <ref>http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/lenski.htm</ref>

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of [[evolution]]. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.<ref>See [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]].</ref>

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the ''E. Coli'' bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. <ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>

<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+1">Undisclosed Data</font>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+1">Some Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR></table>

====Visual inspection====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data on these observations?

</TD></TR></table>

====Turbidity====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? When and how many?
</TD></TR></table>

====Contaminants???====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data for when that occurred, and how often?

A Richard Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data. Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."

In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.
</TD></TR></table>

====The Numbers Please?====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.
</TD></TR></table>

====More missing Numbers====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

====Trust us====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

====Missing Characteristics====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Richard Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics. It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."

What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.
</TD></TR></table>

====DNA====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??

A Richard Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."

No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.
</TD></TR></table>

====More missing data====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,
pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and
nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.

A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>.
</TD></TR></table>

====More missing data====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data distinguishing "This population from all the others"?
</TD></TR></table>

====Fast Tracked====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.
</TD></TR></table>

====Sample Sizes?====
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Cit<sup>+</sup> cells constituted [about] 0.5% of the population at generation 31,500, then 15% and 19% in the next two samples, but only [about] 1.1% at generation 33,000.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
What were the sample sizes and where are the actual data for this sampling?
</TD></TR></table>

Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref>

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...."

Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref>

Others have commented on Lenski's work while taking it at face value, including biochemist [[Michael Behe]], who famously stated the Lenski's claims ''harmed'' the neo-Darwinian stance - "''If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation.''" <ref>[[Michael Behe]] wrote, in ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', "I had argued that the extreme rarity of the development of chloroquine resistance in malaria was likely the result of the need for several mutations to occur before the trait appeared. Even though the evolutionary literature contains discussions of multiple mutations (5), Darwinian reviewers drew back in horror, acted as if I had blasphemed, and argued desperately that a series of single beneficial mutations certainly could do the trick. Now here we have Richard Lenski affirming that the evolution of some pretty simple cellular features likely requires multiple mutations." Behe also said, "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they did."[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)
*[[Letter to PNAS]]
*[[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Dealings with PNAS and Lenski]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

{{evolution}}

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}

Bible Lectures

2010-10-05T21:22:51Z

PhilipM: hope I'm not too late to enroll!

This will be an eight week Bible course, partially based on real-world Bible study sessions conducted by a Conservapedian.

=== Enrollment ===

Just add your name to the list if you want to participate!

- TeacherEd (instructor)

- [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 3 October 2010 (EDT) (student)

- [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 02:30, 5 October 2010 (EDT) (student)

- [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:22, 5 October 2010 (EDT) (student)

=== Curriculum ===

*[[Bible Lecture One|Lecture One]]
Introduction to the Bible - its structure, language, authors, and history.

*[[Bible Lecture Two|Lecture Two]]
Genesis - the creation of the world according to the Bible.

*[[Bible Lecture Three|Lecture Three]]
God's laws - Old Testament laws and how they apply today.

*[[Bible Lecture Four|Lecture Four]]
Highlights from the history of Biblical Israel.

*[[Bible Lecture Five|Lecture Five]]
The four gospels - the story of our Savior's life.

*[[Bible Lecture Six|Lecture Six]]
The parables of Jesus and how they still apply today.

*[[Bible Lecture Seven|Lecture Seven]]
The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

*[[Bible Lecture Eight|Lecture Eight]]
Revelation, the end of the world, Hell, and Biblical scientific foreknowledge.

{{Conservapedia}}

Liberal quotient

2010-10-04T18:19:21Z

PhilipM: remove silly {{fact}} tag

'''Liberal quotient''' is a new term coined by Conservapedia to quantify how [[liberal]] a group is. It is used for assessing political bias and for evaluating statements or positions by such a group.

The liberal quotient is defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group, and, by definition, infinity if there are no conservatives.

According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.

A [[Wikipedia]] user can choose from 32 different categories to self-identify their political ideology. There are 240 users who chose to self-identify as liberal, and 75 who self-identified as conservative. This means that the group of editors on Wikipedia that chose to self-identify has a liberal quotient of about 3:1.

Groups having a high liberal quotient would include university faculties, the National Education Association, the leadership of the [[Democratic Party]], the management of the ''Village Voice'' and ''New York Times'', and the leaders of the [[ACLU]]. Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday, with the exception of black protestant congregations [http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174].

== Comparison to Other Metrics ==

While some liberals oppose any measurement of their influence, others have proposed different metrics. One alternative proposal of a liberal quotient is the percentage of liberals in a population or group.

This metric fails to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, this metric yields the same result if there were 50 liberals and 50 moderates as if there were 50 liberals and 50 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to 1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient. A rebuttal to this criticism is that this is just how percentages work.

Proponent of this measure point out that both measure are mathematical equivalent. Given a liberal quotient defined as LQ=L/C the alternative measure can be obtained by the transformation LQ/(1+LQ). Since one measure can be obtained from the other by a simple transformation, preferring one over the other is simply a matter of taste.

== Criticism ==

Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identifying neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public. A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although some might claim the latter group is more liberal. Furthermore, while "conservative" may be considered a general description for someone with right-wing ideological beliefs, "liberal" does not carry the same connotations for people of the left wing; many socialists would not consider themselves to be liberals.

It has also been pointed out that this metric does not differentiate between groups with differing levels of liberal beliefs; an extreme left-wing group may have the same liberal quotient as a mildly liberal group.

The metric can fail to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. The liberal quotient yields the same result if there were 50 conservatives and 50 moderates as if there were 100 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

A rebuttal is to these criticisms is that it is unclear what moderates add or subtract to a group. For example, it is argued that the counterweight by provided 33 conservatives to the 66 liberals in the presence of 1 moderate, than that is just as effective as the counterweight provided by 1 conservative to 2 liberals in the presence of 97 moderates. The influence of moderates are in this argumentation purposefully ignored, for the sake of simplicity.

In this context it has also been pointed out that the term ''liberal quotient'' can be misleading, and will often be understood to mean liberal fraction. The liberal quotient of 1:2 of the American public, for example, might be mistaken to mean that 66% of all Americans are conservative, although it is only about 35% according to the Harris poll.

A more fundamental criticism is directed to the use of the liberal quotient when applied to media outlets or encyclopedias. Rather than estimating the political orientation of editors, critics propose to consider the political orientation of the actual content. Recent scientific studies on media bias look at the media content, and not at the orientation of the editors, and use in addition other measures than the quotient of articles with a liberal bias versus articles with a conservative bias [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload][http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html]. Note, that both studies nevertheless conclude that most media outlets have a liberal bias.

Another problem with applying this metric to media outlets and encyclopedia is that, in contrast to groups, unbiased articles, the analog to moderates, do not swing their orientation in the presence of biased articles. An encyclopedia with 99.7% unbiased articles, 0.2% liberally biased articles, and 0.1% conservatively biased articles, has the same liberal bias as a product with 66.6% liberally biased articles, 33.3% conservative articles , 0.1% unbiased articles. However, the first would be considered a reliable source of information, while the second would be highly unreliable. And this despite having the same liberal quotient. Even if the influence of moderates in a group of people might be unclear, the influence of unbiased articles on on the reliability of an encyclopedia is obvious.

Other criticism of the liberal quotient is directed at the way it is used in comparison of the bias of Wikipedia with statistically sound results from a Harris Poll. The identified problems are:
* The comparison relies on raw data from a self-selected sample [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_political_ideology].
* It compares 2 answers of a poll with 3 possible answers, to 2 of 32 user categories.
* It compares the outcome of a poll in which respondent can only choose one option, with one a self-identification project, in which users can choose as many options as they like.

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

Liberal literary bias

2010-10-04T18:13:47Z

PhilipM: /* Background */ remove anti-US bias

The '''''liberal literary bias''''' is a commonly-noted bias among the [[publishing]], [[university]], and [[literary review]] establishments.
__TOC__
{{cquote|Professors don't want to teach English literature the way it was written, but instead try to deconstruct it and remold it into Marxist liberal feminist ideology. That's a hopeless task because great English literature is explicitly Christian, conservative, and celebrates heroism, marriage, and masculine courage...The professors don't want them to learn from the poem Beowulf that no civilization will survive without heroes to defend it, or from Chaucer that chivalry has contributed enormously to women's happiness, or from Shakespeare that there really is such a thing as human nature and some people make inherently destructive choices, or from John Milton that our intellectual freedoms are Christian in origin. The feminists don't want young people to learn from Jane Austen that it's reasonable for a woman to look to marriage for happiness. - Eagle Forum Book Review<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/dec06/book.html</ref>}}

==Background==

Former [[Communist Party USA]] General Secretary [[Earl Browder]] remarked in 1960,
{{Cquote|Entering the 1930's as a small [[radical|ultra-left]] sect of some 7,000 members... rose to become a national political influence far beyond its numbers ...its influence became strong in some state organizations of the [[Democratic Party]] (even dominant in a few for some years)... its sponsors and speakers would include almost a majority of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]'s Cabinet, the most prominent intellectuals, judges of all grades up to State Supreme Courts, church leaders, labor leaders, etc.). Right-wing intellectuals complained that it exercised an effective veto in almost all publishing houses against their books, and it is at least certain that those right-wingers had extreme difficulty getting published.<ref>Earl Browder, ''Socialism in America'' in International Communism, St. Antony's Papers, Number 9, Edited by David Footman, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, III, 1960, p 101. [http://www.ilab.org/db/detail.php?lang=ru&booknr=164781192]</ref> }}

==Review bias==
Novels by conservative authors are typically reviewed harshly on account of upholding conservative values (often accompanied by accusations of [[reactionism]] or [[bigotry]]), regardless of the works' actual merits. Liberal novels, conversely, are given a free pass, regardless of vulgar [[sexual]] or anti-values content; their flaws are typically glossed over.<ref>Michael Bérubé, ''What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?: Classroom Politics and "Bias" in Higher Education,'' 27.</ref>

==Literary revisionism==
The [[conservative]] values of literary [[classics]], such as [[War and Peace]], [[Les Miserables]], and the works of [[Mark Twain]] and [[Charles Dickens]] (to name only a few - conservatism permeates the [[canon]]) are typically ignored or marginalized in [[University]] teaching settings. This [[deceit]] by liberal [[academics]] convinces students that conservatism is not modern or capable of creating great art.<ref>Michael Bérubé, ''What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?: Classroom Politics and "Bias" in Higher Education,'' 43-7.</ref> Liberal professors also attempt to suppress invariably conservative views and themes presented in classic literature, by erroneously imposing their own political interpretations (typically feminist, Marxist, or "deconstructionist") on text.<ref>Michael Bérubé, ''What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?: Classroom Politics and "Bias" in Higher Education,'' 92.</ref>

==Publishing bias==
As publishing houses are typically controlled or strongly influenced by the academic and review establishments, they are much less likely to publish conservative works, regardless of their merits. This is worsened by the liberal media's likelihood to ignore conservative publications altogether. Thus, conservative novels must make use of [[Christian]] publishing houses, which have been established to counteract these problems, but unfortunately are lacking in size and present.

== Further reading ==
* Elizabeth Kantor, ''The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature''
* [http://www.conservativebookclub.com Conservative Book Club]

{{liberalism}}

<references />

[[category:liberalism]]
[[category:literature]]

Michael Behe

2010-10-04T17:31:43Z

PhilipM: add to intro

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]]. His books include ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', which both highlight the inherent problems with [[evolution]]ary theory and present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]], are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of DNA structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]] before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.<ref name="Behe">http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp</ref>

Behe observed:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature 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." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe has a skeptical view of ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

It is common for [[evolutionists]] to engage in namecalling against Behe, to which he responds:<ref name="Behe"/>

{{cquote|In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are.}}

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]

Meteoric Water

2010-10-04T17:15:06Z

PhilipM: wikilink

'''Meteoric water''' is [[water]] in or derived from the [[atmosphere]]. <ref>Pellant, Chris. ''The Complete Book of Rocks and Minerals'', Dorling Kindersley Inc.: New York (1995), p. 251</ref> It is believed by many [[creation scientist]]s that meteoric water may be the source of the water in [[Noah's Flood]].

=References=
<references/>

[[category:geology]]