Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-10-26T15:25:09Z

Thinker:

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:To do a little nitpicking, I'm not sure child molesting has ever been given formal recognition as a mortal sin in any way recognised by the Roman Catholic church. Though it doesn't really matter - fornication definatly is a mortal sin, and since child molesting means implicit fornication... it makes no difference at all, the result is still hell unless confessed. Recognising child molesting as mortal sin has about as much practical effect as imposing a death penalty for suicide :) [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::As the last sentence of this paragraph says, it is a societal issue and not one connected with religion in general, or Catholicism in particular. The existence of such a section in an article on the theology of Catholicism is discordant and irrelevant, and it should be removed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:15, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I think removal of the section entirely would be innapropriate and it would make us look like we are trying to hide the facts. You are right, the priests probably didn't molest the boys ''because'' they were Catholic, as ''no'' religion teaches that molesting young children is ok. However, popular coverage and public knowledge came about because of the abuse in the Catholic church, not because of general societal abuse. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Learn Together, plus there were controversies throughout its' existence. While a controversy section may be required, it does not have to dwell on just one bad instance.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:From my personal point of view, we have an opportunity to present information in a form that it is not often found -- and that is certainly our goal versus removal. Anyone not living in a cave has heard about the scandal extensively so simply ignoring it only makes us look bad, but how many people are aware of the extra information that we have added that is commonly suppressed from press reports? Our readers need to see that extra balanced perspective. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:As another general rule, when our article has an extensive history from many editors to take its current form, including 9 sysops and the site owner, then it is best to work within the structure that has formed before resorting to complete section removal. Sometimes drastic measures are needed, but it is unlikely that would be true in this case. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:I disagree. This section is insulting to the Roman Catholic church, and implies that there is an institutional basis to abuse, rather than abuse being the deeds of a very small minority, and something that is common to all faiths and denominations, and to all organisations which work with youing people. There is no equivalent section in Protestantism, or Methodism, or Baptism; yet nonconformist ministers have been guilty of child abuse. That this article should have such a section is vilainous bigotry and an insult not just to the Church but to Conservapedia also. Drastic measures '''are''' needed in this case, LT. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::I will add: drastic measures are necessary because anti-Catholic bigotry is a sad fact of life, and has been expressed on this site as well, and these people will argue and obfuscate and delay to prevent necesary and real change. Indeed, the whole abuse scandal has been whipped up by bigots to slander the Church - otherwise, why have not Protestant churches received the same consideration? unless this site examines similar scandals in other denominations, the section should go. This is not a site for Catholic-beating. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Is the section lying? I'm all for taking out lies from the article, but if the truth "insults the Catholic church", then that's the Church's fault. If the same thing is happening in the protestant churches, then instead of [[censorship|censoring]] this article, add to the other ones. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:24, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::::We would then end up with every denominational article carrying these sections - all because a handful of bad apples among millions of caring, God-fearing clergy. It would be totally disproportionate, and give the impression of CP as a religion-bashing site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::- ::Well, I think there is a right to a Controversy section, though the scope and depth of that scandal is ridiculous. As I said early, the Church has had scandals since the beginning. If we were to add all those as child-abuse was added, there would be no credible page left. Maybe the section deserves its own page. Trying to educate others on Roman Catholicism is not helpful with this section. It becomes, trying to educate on why to avoid Catholicism. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:25, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Sound sense as ever from Jpatt. Let the section become a separate article. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:::There was a scandal in the Catholic Church. It was huge and had far reaching ramifications. It is not anti-Catholic to acknowledge that. The Church itself has acknowledged such. The fact is there are very few people in any part of Western culture who have not heard of the scandal and haven't developed a bad taste in some form because of it. Our goal is to present truth. There is much that was left out in the way it was presented in the press and we should present that missing information. We can actually help to educate others. Any solution that simply removes the scandal, as was done, is inappropriate. I take no formal position on whether it should be moved to a different location. If that is the belief, then that is fine, but if it can no longer be found on our site, then we are running from truth -- and that is not something that conservatives do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: "A" scandal? Are you referring to all the various cases collectively? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 05:10, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I've been slow to comment because I don't claim any particular expertise in this area, but my ''impressions'' are as follows:
* Much of the criticism of the Catholic church on this issue is anti-Christian beat-up. But that's not to deny that there's truth behind it.
* The Catholic church has had more instances of this sort of problem than other churches. I may be wrong here; perhaps that is due to the beat-up, but that is my impression.
* Other churches have handled the situation better. That is, if a pedophile minister is found in the Baptist or Anglican churches (for example), they take proper action, including relieving that minister of his duties. By contrast, the Catholic church has (probably more so in the past) tended to simply shift the offending priest to another parish and otherwise ignore the problem.
So on the basis of my ''impressions'' (assuming they reflect reality), I would say that the section should stay, although not be as major an issue as some (anti-Christians) would like to make it. And to point out the anti-Christian magnification of it.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:I propose moving that section to a separate article, linked from the Roman Catholicism page. If anyone strongly opposes, please say so; or I will make the change this evening (ie in about 12 hours from now). Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:: I oppose the move, on the grounds of there not being sufficient reason to do so. I don't ''strongly'' oppose it, but then I'm not sure that that should be a requirement. If it is moved, then there should be a summary left in this article (i.e. not just a link). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I fail to understand your reasoning. This article should describe the theology, the essence of Catholicism, those things intrinsic to it. Abuse allegationa are not essential to an understanding of the faith, and have been played up by anti-Catholic bigots. I am not accusing you of being one, Philip, but you are playing into their hands. Your objections would be more credible were you to add a section about abusive pastors of your own denomination to the relevant article. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Why should this article be limited to the theology of Catholicism? Why can't it include the history of the church (which is already there), the spread of the Church, and other aspects, including criticisms and controversies? The Bible doesn't whitewash its leading characters, and I see no reason to whitewash the Catholic Church (or any other church) by failing to mention this aspect and/or other failings. As for "my own" denomination, first, as I said above, my impression is that most other denominations have handled the situation better, so that it's never been the same issue as it has been with the Catholic Church, and second, although I currently attend a Baptist church (and have for about 12 years), I'm not an expert on the Baptist church, it just being the latest of several I have regularly attended in my life, so don't know enough about its failures to write about them.
:::: On the other hand, I see that this article links to [[Catholic Church]], which is ''also'' about the Catholic Church (!), so perhaps this article ''should'' be just about their theology. If that is the decision of the editors here, then I could happily agree to taking this issue (and anything else that is not related to their theology) out of this article and transferring it to the other article.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a matter of definitions. They are christian in the loosest sense - they worship Christ. But many protestants consider that this definition is too loose, the RCC cannot be considered 'true' christians because they do not follow some of the fundamental teachings contained in the bible (eg, salvation by faith alone) or because they introduce some major elements that are not present in the bible (eg, a succession of popes, infant babtism, a church heirachy). Conversely, the Catholic Church will not recognise any *other* church as Christian formally, except the Orthodox church, because they consider a church is not legitimate unless it can trace ancestry back to Peter. Personally, I think the Catholic church isn't Christian in the most important sense of all: It's members are not Saved, because they are placing their faith in the church organisation and their rituals rather than in the personal salvation of Jesus. For this reason, while I will admit they are Christian, I personally consider them misguided and unintentionally extremally dangerous, and an organisation I am obliged to oppose. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

----

What a load of B.S. We are the original Christians. If we did not exist, Protestants would not exist either. Your Reverend telling you guys we are evil demons again? Don't listen to him. Also, we beleive that you must be good your entire life to go to heaven, unlike most of the protestants who think that if you aren't baptized or aren't Christian, you go to hell, and that if you are baptized but then kill a guy- you go to heaven. It is statements like this that make me wonder how much the Protestants must brainwash their followers. --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 16:09, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe you are mistaking the position of the Catholic Church, which is odd since you are apparently Catholic. Are you trying to say that Catholics believe if you are good you will go to heaven? Catholics believe in good works, but merely doing good works does not mean one goes to heaven. There is more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:51, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Much more. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:56, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm saying that one must do more than just accept Christ: they must live him throughout their life and must do what is right. I think I made a mistake in my previous point. Also- I think the most amazing thing about the Catholic Church in recent years is how it became so much more accepting of evolution and other science.--[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:39, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hmmm, you seem to have as wrong an idea about Protestants as you think Protestants have about Catholics. To first of all mention my "credentials", I was raised in an evangelical Protestant Christian home and have been involved with several different Christian denominations and groups essentially all my life (which, odds are, is longer than yours). I have ''never'' understood, nor have most others that I'm aware of, that what gets you to heaven is baptism. Rather, you get to heaven if you have accepted Jesus' gift of forgiveness for your sins, even if those sins include murder. (''Any'' sin against a perfect God is sufficient to separate us from God; so whether He forgives us for a "white lie" or murder is pretty much the same thing; in either case we are forgiven.) And it is a gift, not something you earn from doing good works. If you truly love God, you will want to help others, so good works are a natural consequence of being a Christian, but not a requirement.
:::: As for Protestants not existing if it weren't for Catholics, I would put it somewhat differently. That is, the true church, which became known as the Catholic (universal) church, gradually became corrupt, and Protestantism was merely a return to the true church. So in that sense, Protestants are the "original" Christians (which is not to say that they are perfect, of course, and some of ''them'' have become quite corrupt).
:::: The Catholic church hasn't become more accepting of science. It was always a big supporter of science. Rather, it has become more accepting of the anti-biblical ''philosophy'' of evolution.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Mr. Rayment (and my apologies in advance if that is an inappropriate title), I am curious about two statements here. First, the historical evidence seems to suggest that the Catholic Church was very much against science in its infancy. History is replete with examples of it censoring new discoveries when they didn't sync with its teachings. An excellent case study is the drama that ensued with Kepler and Galileo (though Kepler's inflammatory remarks certainly didn't help smooth things over). And the Church condemned evolution when it was first proposed, so I would definitely say that it has become more accepting of science, though the causes for that shift are beyond my expertise.
:::::Second, and I know I'm getting into treacherous waters here, but you assert that it has become more accepting of the anti-Biblical philosophy of evolution. To start with, I would like to assert my own claim that evolution is not anti-Biblical per se, but as that is an extended argument better placed elsewhere, I will simply make that assertation and leave it. What I want to disagree with here is that the Church has become more accepting of an anti-Biblical movement. I will simply say that this is not quite correct. Instead, the Church has asserted the independence of Biblical Truth from scientific domains. In other words, the Catholic Church holds that the Bible should not be used as a scientific authority, but rather as a spiritual authority.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:33, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: As far as Galileo is concerned, an in-depth look at the situation is [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here], but in a few words, the problems were not due to his science. As for the more general question of the Church and science, see the section titled ''Christians and the foundation of science'' in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1584/#science this article].
:::::: The Bible records that the entire period from the appearance of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. Evolution completely contradicts that, so is anti-biblical. Jesus said ({{Bible ref|John|3|12}}) that if you don't believe the earthly things (e.g. history and science) that he tells us, why should we believe heavenly (spiritual) things? Much of the Bible's teaching is ''based on'' its claims about history (e.g. {{Bible ref|Mark|10|5-9}}). Give that history away to "science", and you've given away the foundation for the "Biblical Truth".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::I have read both the Church's official records of the Galileo incident and Galileo's personal writings on the matter. Creationontheweb.com has an interesting article, but it simply doesn't reflect the historical documents. In them, the Catholic Church explicitly states that Galileo was on trial specifically because his advocation of the heliocentric model of the universe was contrary to church teaching. This period is also very interesting because Galileo's response to the trial is among the oldest advocations of a quasi- or even non-literal interpretation of the Bible. So after reading the primary sources, I have to say that the Galileo incident ''is'' an example of the Church quaffing science that didn't agree with them. It wasn't the last time, either: Kepler's mother was tortured under accusations of witchcraft until he recanted his own heliocentric views (though in defense of the Church, Kepler had it coming...he wasn't the most diplomatic person in the world), and the writings of every heliocentrist were officially banned for almost two centuries.

::I also want to address your second point. The Bible does record creation as having taken place over six days in the first creation story, but evolution is only anti-Biblical if you accept that Scripture is ''always'' meant to be taken literally. If we make that initial assumption, then I completely concede that evolution is anti-Biblical. However, I would argue that that assumption is unneccessary, because the instances of the Bible relying on its own accuracy are not reliant on the details of creation week. Specifically, I am referring to your citation of Mark 10:5-9. The only thing this passage relies on is the fact that God made humanity as man and woman...the details don't matter here. Now, there are certainly plenty of places where the Bible does rely on its historicity (I am thinking especially of the prophecies), but in those cases it relies on sections which are undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative. And because this is the case, ceding the historical accuracy of Genesis would not undermine the foundation of Truth, because all that the Bible relies upon from Genesis is ''that'' it happened, not really ''when'' it happened. (I'm not arguing here that we ''should'' cede history from Genesis,, because that is a separate argument. I want to assert only that doing so would not undermine Biblical Truth)

::As an aside, your citation of John 3 interested me, because I read the entire passage as an overt delineation between material and spiritual reality. "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit" - John 3:6. That's really all I can say on that...John is such a highly metaphoric Gospel that I can't interpret it any more than on a personal level.

::And I see that the page is getting too long, so perhaps we should move this debate?--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:22, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Insight into the Church and Galileo can be found at this page I created [[Robert_Bellarmine]]. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:Although overall a very good page, the section on Galileo does not agree with either the Church's official records of the time nor Galileo's personal statements in that regard. In short, it doesn't agree with the primary evidence. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: CreationOnTheWeb's "article" is actually a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. Would you mind asking them about how the paper doesn't (according to you) reflect the historical document?
::: But the main point was that the Church was supportive of ''science'', regardless of whether they supported or suppressed ''particular scientific ideas''.
::: You don't need to accept that Scripture is ''always'' taken literally for evolution to be non-biblical, only that the creation account is to be taken literally.
::: I quoted Mark 10:5-9 as an example of the Bible relying on its history generally, not specifically on the creation account, but in fact it does do that. It is specifically referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, and the fact that Eve was made from Adam: they were originally one flesh, so in marriage they become one flesh. Another example is the week, which is based on the six days of creation and one day of rest. Should we really be working for six millions years and then a million years off work? But perhaps the most important one is that of sin and death. The whole reason that Jesus came was to save us from our sin, which began when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. It was this sin that introduced death into the world, and Jesus showed his authority by overcoming death. But evolution proposes millions upon millions of years of death prior to the appearance of man.
::: "''...in those cases [prophecies] it relies on sections which are undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative.''": Did you read [[creation week]]? It shows that the creation account is "undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative".
::: "''...all that the Bible relies upon from Genesis is that it happened, not really when it happened.''": That ''what'' happened? That Eve was made from Adam's side, for example? That Adam was made from the dust of the ground, not from an ape?
::: "''(I'm not arguing here that we should cede history from Genesis,, because that is a separate argument. I want to assert only that doing so would not undermine Biblical Truth)''": It would undermine any "Biblical Truth" that relies on the creation account, and that includes the basis of sin, salvation, death, clothing, the week, sacrifice (substitutionary atonement), marriage, and so on.
::: Your comments about John 3:12 seem irrelevant. Okay, so it was drawing a distinction between the material and the spiritual. John 3:12 wouldn't have made sense without there being a distinction. If you don't believe one, you won't believe the other. If the two weren't distinct, that would make no sense.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:08, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I use "article" to refer to anything written, peer-reviewed or not. A paper is merely something which consumes an inordinate amount of time for little to no demonstratable progress:-) (can you tell I have a deadline looming?). I am using my own interpretation of the primary documents, and it is possible that there has been something lost in translation from the original Latin. As far as how they might have mis-interpreted the primary documents, I freely admit that I might have misinterpreted them, though they are faily straightforward. But the fact remains that the Church actively suppressed science precepts which disagreed with it.

::I think I can sum up the other portion of our other debate more simply now that we have both fleshed out our arguments. I assert that the inerrancy of the Bible comes in the term of "big picture" items. What is important is that God created the universe, that man (or perhaps creation in general?) was marred by sin, and that Christ died for our sins. When and how these particular things came about is irrelevant to me, because in the end, everything goes back to God.

::Your arguments, on the other hand (and I really hope I am not mis-representing them), assert that all the details of the Bible are Truth, because it is the sacred word of God. If I have summarized the arguments accurately, then further debate would entail debates over our individual religious foundations, which I wish to avoid. With that in mind, and given that this debate probably doesn't belong on the Roman Catholicism talk page, I think it may be better if I at least moved on. I don't want to "give up," but I'd rather not step on too many toes. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic") Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

:This will be a tricky one. What one church considers an indisputable fundamental of the faith, another will consider heresy. There are even some who claim to be Christian, yet deny the miracles described in the Gospels. About the only thing that everyone who calls themself a Christian can agree on is that Jesus was important, somehow. Obviously we need a defintion just to stop the really strange churches from declaring themselves in. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

[[User:MaveYEL]]

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since.
Would this be a worthwile edition?
The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

[[Trident1222]]

:Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am Catholic. We are Christian. Don't believe me? We; along with the Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and several other Orthodox Churches, were the first Christian Church Ever to exist. If not for us, all the protestant churches would not exist. If not for us, Christianity would not exist, nor would there be such thing as a Protestant entirely (Protestants come from the word Protest). --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:38, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:: See my comments above in the ''Catholics not as Christians?'' section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

==What a waste of time==
I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:You have chosen to alter the article to put your own spin by simply removing enmasse what you did not like and adding what you wished, without discussing in talk, and without sources. When you were told this was not the way we operate and to rework it, you refused and simply put back the same unacceptable material. Even now you have an aggrandized view of yourself by putting this at the top of the talk section and not appending it to the bottom of the page in chronological order like everyone else has done. (I have move it for you). You do not work with others for the bettermen of the article. When you are serious about article improvement then you will be welcomed to return, but until that time, your departure will not be mourned. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::All my edits were aimed at improving the factual content on the article. Much of the section of this article dealing with the early period is basically the agreed mythology of the church and has little connection with history. If you're seriously interested in the history of the early church, you should read 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin (1987, Fontana). Professor Herrin is one of the leading scholars of church between 400 and 800 AD. But I warn you, this isn't a comfortable read for anyone who wants to believe in a myth of a unified church with Constantine the Great establishing an benign empire based on Christian principles.

::Anyway, Learn together, I've seen here and from many other edits you've made to other articles, that you - like most of the Conservapedia sysops (Philip J Rayment being an honourable exception - there may be others but I haven't seen them) - are perfectly happy to revert factual corrections to articles made by others if they happen to disagree with the cosy world view of American "conservatives", without explanation of any kind. Now, there may be many facts which are uncomfortable for the world-view of American "conservatives" (I repeat that this has very little connection with conservative politics outside the USA) but you and the other conservative sysops have to decide if you want to construct an encyclopedia of knowledge or an encyclopedia of approved prejudices for American "conservatives".

::I'm going to correct this article once more (this time, I'll add the Herrin reference). If you revert my edits, I'll conclude that facts which conflict with American "conservative" prejudices aren't welcome here. Your choice.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 17:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I see is that you are simply reinserting the same information, again without discussion as to individual merit, and basically saying that should be enough and any effort to revert it will look poorly upon me - no. I also have to ask what edits of Philip's in Roman Catholicism or the other articles you have edited led you to your conclusions?

:::I have allowed you to stay because you do have knowledge which I believe could be beneifical, but your approach must improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::That's an improvement on your first contribution to this discussion. Which, if you recall, was to block me for a fortnight and label my contribution as vandalism, simply because I had corrected some serious errors in the article. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:01, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, everyone gets banned by an overzealous admin. I've been there. With so many trolls sneaking around here, it's to be expected - have to keep on the alert, and take action at any suspicion. That, and this is a '''conservative''' encyclopedia - we are quite open in admitting we have a political agenda to advance. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Understood, but what does any particular view of the history of the Catholic church have to do with conservatism in a political sense? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-10-26T15:09:18Z

Thinker:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== I DEMAND THIS ARTICLE BE MADE ==
Seriously, if you guys say this site is made to prevent liberal bias, you certainly have a lot of bias yourself.
Creation is unfalsifiable, and, just like Evolution, it deserves to be said that neither can be proven scientifically, and no, a single book written by some old guys does not count as proof.

Even if this site is meant to have a Conservative bias, conservative<math>\neq</math>christian. I also think that the [[Date of Creation]] should be heavily edited to reflect that Creation is, like Evolution, an improvable theory.

I'd do this myself, but I am unsure of your conservative guidelines for writing pages and I'm used to writing on [[Wikipedia]] The most reliable source of unbiased, open information.{{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}

:You have just started off on two left feet.

:First and foremost, you, whoever you are (who forgot to sign your submission), are in a position to "demand" nothing.

:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics {{unsigned|MarluxiaKyoshu}}
::: Even on Wikipedia, users are expected to sign their talk-page posts.
::: I've tried "adding in" content to Wikipedia's biased articles. It doesn't work, because the people that control the articles are "liberal" (I'm talking about creation/evolution/ID articles, and they are evolutionists).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==False?==
"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::What's false, if anything, abut the Pericopa Adultura is the authenticity of the manuscript. Definite standards exist to help decide whether any given text ought to remain part of the Bible or not. In other words, the dispute with the Pericope is whether it is canonical.
::No one has yet falsified any narrative contained in ''canonical'' text.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I also have concerns about this article. In principle, it's correct. Practice is not so clear-cut, however. The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen. Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist. The same with the Hittites. Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist. But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong? No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. And that's the point: Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.

There's other problems, but you (hopefully) get the idea. It's not that the Bible is not falsifiable, but that the example ways of doing that are not all good ones.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Bible Prophecies ==

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]
(BTW, how do you do that Bible-link thingie?)
: See {{tl|Bible ref}} and {{tl|Bible quote}}. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic ==
I know this probably won't change anything, but I thought I should point out that this article does not look encyclopedic at all, but more like evangelism.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 12:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:The notion that "encyclopedic" requires a definition that casts doubt on the veracity of certain facts of history is truly a sad commentary. [[James Ussher]]'s ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' was regarded as "encyclopedic" in its day, and rightly so.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

=="Best attested figure in human history"==
Is that true? The Holy Bible is indeed the main record of the man, and a large and often well-authenticated book it is, but it is pretty much the only source. (I'm not for a second denying that record). But surely Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan or even Britney Spears would have had tens of thousands of different texts about them, by tens of thousands of different witnesses - far more than Christ? I don't disagree with the intention of your point, but there's probably a better, more accurate way to phrase the same point that doesn't contain factual inaccuracies. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 15:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, it's true. Where did you get the idea that the Bible was the only source? The [[Rome|Roman]] historians [[Seneca]], [[Tacitus]], and [[Pliny the Younger]] all talk about Him, His followers, or both. And don't forget [[Flavius Josephus]], either, and remember that he didn't follow Christ himself; he just reported on those who did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::Terry, you should be careful about citing Flavius Josephus. Although he does say that Jesus ''existed'', and led the Jews in rebellion, the part of the document that describes Jesus as the messiah has been proven to be a later addition, forged by medieval Monks. That's the Testimoniam Flavianum, and it's definitely unreliable.-[[User:Madison|Madison]] 16:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Interesting Terry, thanks for the response. But even if what you say is true, isn't it likely that more modern internationally famous figures are actually more attested, simply because of greater population, more people in the media, more media, etc? Even with all the authors and commentators you refer to, I'd be hard pushed to think he was more written about, quoted, listened to, reported upon, commented upon than a modern US President? I'm not decrying Him, I'm simply saying that modernity has surely brought more 'attesting' than could have been possible in history? I'll happily stand down if we can find some evidence otherwise, but it'll make for interesting research - if it's even provable. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:35, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: I think you've got a valid point, Billabong, except that Britney Spears is not a good example of someone in ''history''. "Best-attested in ancient history" might be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==six twenty-four-hour days==
I see that this article specifically talks about six 24 hour days. You will be aware that there are other interpretations which count the "days" as being a thousand years long or longer. Would it be appropriate for me to add something bout this? I understand that we're intended to edit rather than talk, but I wouldn't want to start off with a bad edit or simply have my entry reversed. thank you.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:No, it would not. Yes, I am aware that "other interpretations exist." I command ''you'' to be aware that they are flat-out wrong. Nor would a "day/age" interpretation make a bit of sense, for this reason above all: plants are created on Day Three, and no animals exist until two Days later. How could the plants survive? Blank-out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tolerance, see [[Creation week]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

On that point, the article says:
{{QuoteBox|Creation as a concept is not separable from the rest of the Bible. The chief reason is that Jesus Himself attested to it, and attested to the Creation Week as consisting of six and no more than six (twenty-four-hour) days.}}
(This is after I altered it, but didn't change the point that I'm querying.) Jesus certainly quoted from the creation account in Genesis and implicitly attested to the account being historical and accurate, including an ''implicit'' endorsement of the six days (e.g. {{Bible ref|Mark|10|6}}), but I'm sure that He didn't ''explicitly'' attest to creation week consisting of six days. I'm querying what was in mind there.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical Inconsistency?==

The article states that "[i]f anyone can show definitely that any part of the Bible is inconsistent with any other part, then he has shown the Bible to be false."

Now this raises a question for me, and I'm hoping someone with more theological background can weigh in on this. Genesis, as I'm sure many people know, contains two creation stories. Gen 1 contains the familiar one, but Gen 2 adds another one. And rather than simply being two different ways of telling the same story, they are overtly contradictory. Gen 1 posits that God created man last (that is, after the animals), whereas Gen 2 says that He created man first. There are other contradictions, as well, but from a scientific standpoint, one is enough to get started. Now, there are two ways I can see us dealing with this problem.

:1) Accept the Bible as the supreme source of spiritual Truth (which is my personal belief) and cede that parts of it are not meant by Him to be taken literally or as history. Thus we acknowledge that the Bible is Truth, but that it cannot be used as a source of scientific authority.

:2) Insist that the Bible is meant to be a totally historical document, accept that it is inconsistent, which violates the claim made in the article (per the article itself), and in turn falsifies the Bible.

I don't know about anyone else, but that second possiblity is personally very disturbing. But the question still remains: where's the other universe? --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 19:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: There is a third possibility: That what you see as an inconsistency is not actually an inconsistency. The first part of the account is chronological, the second is not, yet you make a chronological claim about it. The NIV translates {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|19}} as "Now the LORD God ''had formed'' out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." (my emphasis).
: The language of Genesis 1 is that of narrative, and the [[Creation week|experts agree that it was meant as history]]. And that's a point to keep in mind: The Bible was not written as a ''science'' textbook, but it does contain a lot of ''[[Bible history|history]]'', and some of that history does overlap areas that science claims. But is it really science (observation and testing) or ''history'' that is in dispute? We can run tests to see if scales have the capability of turning in feathers, but we can't run tests to see if that's what actually happened in the past. The former is ''science'', and the latter is ''history''. Okay, the two are not mutually exclusive, and certainly science can aid our understanding of history, but we must not blur the distinction.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I see we're probably about to enter an identical debate as the one on the Roman Catholicism talk page, but I would like to respond here before moving the debate.

After reading it even more carefully, I insist on my assertation that the second account is chronological. It does not include specific lengths of time, like the first account, but it certainly contains order. Gen 2:4-7 clearly describes the creation of man before "there was field shrub on earth and grass had sprouted." More importantly, Gen 2:8-9 very clearly says that the creation of plant life took place subsequent to the creation of man, which is contradictory to the first creation story. Gen 2:18-20 asserts that God created animal life in response to man's being alone (also my translation, NAB, does not have "had" in 2:19...even if it did I would argue that it meant "had created" in the sense of "ordered to be created"). I honestly fail to see how this can't be taken chronologically.

You say that experts agree Gen 1 was meant as history, but I utterly disagree with this claim. The Catholic Church's ''official doctrine'' is that the creation stories were not meant to be taken literally. Whether or not we agree with this claim, the Church's stance is at least evidence that the experts ''do not'' agree about the intent of Genesis. Now, for fear of entering into a doctrinal battle (as per my user page, I want to avoid those), that is all I will say on that particular matter.

Finally, you establish a dichotomy between science and history, whereas any professional historian will tell you that history must follow the scientific method. In the course of historical studies, a narrative must be treated as the primary evidence on which hypotheses are made. Testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible, which is one reason why the fossil record is only weak evidence for any origins thoery. Evolution is actually tested in completely different ways, which I discuss in our debate on "counterexamples to evolution" discussion. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, the second part of the account does have ''some'' chronological statements, but it is not primarily chronological. I would also point out that if a document that has been around for a long time and accepted as authoritative for a long time by many people ''appears'' to have a contradiction that has somehow gone unnoticed by so many people for so long, then perhaps the apparent contradiction exists only in the minds of those seeing the contradiction. Much of ancient society was a "high context" culture, where the context of a writing was assumed to be understood, instead of being spelt out. What I'm getting at is that the second part of the account should be read ''in the light of'' the first part, and not as a totally separate account. If I said to you that Abdul's two wives often argued with each other, and someone else told you that Abdul was no bigamist, then you might conclude that one or other of us was lying or mistaken. But if you already knew that Abdul was married, widowed, then married again, but that his second wife knew the first wife well before she died, then you would understand what I said in a different light. And although you might argue that my wording wasn't clear to you, you would at least have to concede that it wasn't incorrect. Nothing in the second part of the creation account clearly and unambiguously contradicts the first part. The only contradiction is from taking an overly-literal understanding and looking for contradictions. So when {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|4-7}} ''appears'' to contradict Genesis 1, you should be saying, "but plants had already been created, so what is this referring to instead?". [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/881/ This article] explains that Genesis 2:4-7 would have been talking about ''cultivated'' plants, and clearly {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|8-9}} is talking specifically about the Garden of Eden, not plants in general. I've already answered regarding {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|18-19}}, but will add that naming them and finding Adam a helper was why God brought the animals to him, not why they were created in the first place.
: The experts I was referring to were experts in Hebrew and Old Testament, and one (or even several) church organisation(s) does not change that. And even though the Catholic Church has compromised on this aspect in recent times, it's still official Catholic doctrine that Adam was a real person. Furthermore, essentially everyone accepted it as history until the last few centuries when "scientific" ideas started to be applied to it. Even now, most scholars who reject its literalness do so for reasons other than the text itself, as is documented in [[Old Earth Creationism]]. I'm sure this also applies to the Catholic Church.
: Yes, history does to a fair extent follow the scientific method, but only up to a point. It relies to a large extent on ancient documents, and historians have to make value judgments on the reliability of those documents. There's few opportunities to do scientific tests in cases like that. Sure, one can put the stone tablet under a microscope or test its chemical composition to determine that it is authentic, or that it came from a certain culture, or whatever, but what sort of scientific tests does one run on the content of the writing? But then you admit that "testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible", which is another way of saying that they are not really falsifiable, which means that they don't really qualify as science. As for evolution being tested in different ways, what I recall you saying in that other discussion is that evolution is "tested" by how ''plausible'' it is, which is different from testing whether or not it's correct.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

You raise a number of very good points, and as I have exhausted my rather slim technical knowledge (as opposed to personal knowledge) of the Bible, I would be foolish to try and continue. I have been taught and have come to agree with the idea that the creation stories are meant to be taken figuratively. Others have been taught and have come to agree with other perspectives, and that is fine.

You do mention the importance of placing something in context, and I would argue that the Bible must itself be placed in an historical context. Even if you accept the Bible as the literal word of God, then we still have the idea that He was speaking to people of a different time and place. Times have obviously changed, and although Truth hasn't, I think it may be possible (not certain, only possible) that He would tell us Truth in a different way nowadays.

One last thing that's somewhat related: all science is tested by plausibility. However, plausibility is not something which is determined by how logical an idea sounds. Its plausibility is determined in many controlled experiments, and it is judged plausible if the effects match the expected results 95% or more of the time. That's a lot of uncertainty, which is why science is contstantly reworking past ideas...we don't like uncertainty, but we have to deal with it.

I truly enjoy debating with you, Mr. Rayment, as your thoughts are always well-reasoned and thought-out, but I am afraid "real-world" matters will be occupying my time for a while. Hopefully, I will soon be able to continue, and I look forward to it.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-25T21:47:19Z

Thinker:

Precision

2008-10-25T14:37:43Z

Thinker: the article was not entirely clear on the dichotomy between precision and accuracy

'''Precision''' is an indication of how consistent a measuring device is in a [[measure|measurement]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> This may also be used in terms of scientific experimentation as a measure of the experiments reliability. Precision is in contrast to [[Accuracy | accuracy]], which is merely a measure of how close a measurement is to the actual value.

Accuracy and precision are often used interchangeably, although they cannot be. As is often the case in experimentation, a measurement may be precise (produce the same value reliably), but it is inaccurate due to a consistent error on the part of the investigator.

At some point, precision reaches a scientific limit. Due to [[quantum mechanics]], and especially the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]], at some point precision in measurement is impossible without the imparting of energy onto the measured object. For this reason, precision at the [[atom|atomic]] level is difficult to obtain. One example is, instead of referring to [[electron|electrons]] in a particular location around an atom, scientists determine what area of space they ''could'' occupy, and label this area a probability cloud, or an [[orbital]].

In most non-scientific prose, it is common to give approximate values. That being the norm, there is no need to use ''about'' in phrases like, "The first airplane was flown by the [[Wright Brothers]] {{#expr: {{years ago|1903}} round -2}} years ago."

==References==
<references/>

[[category:science]]

Little Rock, Arkansas

2008-10-25T14:31:54Z

Thinker:

'''Little Rock''' is the capital city of [[Arkansas]], part of the [[United States]]. It is located in Pulaski County in the center of the state, and is the largest city in Arkansas.

==Links==
*[http://littlerockinfo.com/ Little Rock Info]
*[http://littlerockchamber.com/ Little Rock Chamber of Commerce]

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]
[[Category:Arkansas]]

User:Thinker

2008-10-25T14:29:37Z

Thinker:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-25T01:00:12Z

Thinker: found another typo...I can't stand them

Inorganic

2008-10-25T00:45:49Z

Thinker: chemical defintion of organic

'''Inorganic''' means something is not composed of organic material; organic material must contain carbon, by definition. By extension, organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. All living material is composed mainly of carbon atoms, hence the association of "organic" with "living", though that association does not necessarily hold in all cases.

[[category:biology]]
[[category:chemistry]]

Talk:Concerto

2008-10-25T00:12:13Z

Thinker:

Hands up all those who hate the word "concerti" out of its baroque context.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:I'll admit that I'm often labeled as a snob for insisting on its use, but "concerti" ''is'' the correct plural of "concerto". Maybe in some day, that will go completely by the wayside (after all, we no longer italicize "concerto"), but until then...--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 20:12, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Sympatric speciation

2008-10-25T00:08:08Z

Thinker: corrected...the article was actually describing peripatric, not sympatric speciation

'''Sympatric speciation''', unlike [[allopatric speciation]], is speciation which takes place in the same physical environment or ecological niche. Such speciation may also take place after a gross [[gene | genetic]] change in a population. It appears that this type of evolution is more common in plants, whose reproductive cycles make them especially prone to both changes in lifestyle and chromosomal makeup.

The question of whether speciation can occur in sympatry has been among the most contentious in evolutionary biology. In recent years a growing number of studies have provided empirical evidence that it has occurred <ref>
Barluenga, M et al Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid ''Nature''439:719</ref><ref> Savolainen, V. et al. Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island ''Nature''441, 210 - 2130</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]

Peripatric speciation

2008-10-25T00:01:35Z

Thinker: added information on the Founder Effect, which is related

[[Image:Peripatric.gif|thumb|300px|left|Peripatric Speciation]]
'''Peripatric speciation''' is a version of the [[allopatric]] [[speciation]] mode and happens when one of the isolated populations has very few individuals. In peripatric speciation, small population size would make full-blown speciation a more likely result of the geographic isolation because genetic drift acts more quickly in small populations. Genetic drift, and perhaps strong selective pressures, would cause rapid genetic change in the small population. This genetic change could lead to speciation.

The relative over-representation of rare alleles in such species is called the Founder Effect. This simply states that any rare alleles possessed by the small number of founding individuals will increase disproportionately in the population, and thus the species.

[[category:evolution]]

Macroevolution

2008-10-24T23:57:14Z

Thinker: expanded article

'''Macroevolution''' is the theory that [[natural selection]] can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new [[clade]]s which are groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Macroevolution may require a large number of mutations, though it may also come about as a result of a gross genetic change. For instance, there are two species of grey tree frogs in North America; one has two sets of chromosomes, and one has four. From an evolutionary perspective, this is the result of a random failure in meiosis in a generation of tree frogs which led to a new genetic makeup for one of the species.

The scientific data regarding mutations causing the changes necessary for macroevolution has been seen by some as damaging to the macroevolutionary position. <ref>Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome], ''Creation Research Society Quarterly 42(2), 2005''.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Microevolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Answers In Genesis]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection

2008-10-24T23:50:18Z

Thinker:

Creationists have reason to doubt the theory based on '''Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection''' published in 1930. In modern terminology Fisher’s theorem has been stated as: “The rate of increase in the mean fitness of any organism at any time ascribable to natural selection acting through changes in gene frequencies is exactly equal to its [[gene]]tic variance in fitness at that time”.

It relies on the premise that a gene ([[allele]]) may have a fitness of its own being a unit of selection. Historically this way of thinking has also influenced the view of egoism as the most important force in evolution; see for instance references in [[Gaussian adaptation]] about Hamilton's kin selection, 1963, or [[Richard Dawkins | Dawkins]] about the selfish gene, 1976.

A proof as given by Maynard Smith, 1998, shows the theorem to be formally correct. Its formal validity may even be extended to the mean fitness and variance of individual fitness values.

A drawback is that it does not tell us the increase in mean fitness from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next (which would be expected), but only from offspring to parents in the same generation. Another drawback is that the variance is a genic variance in fitness (in vertical direction) and not a variance in phenotypes (horizontal direction). Therefore, the structure of a phenotypic landscape – which is of considerable importance to a possible increase in mean fitness - can’t be considered.

And there is something dubious in the premise, so let us have a look at the definition of fitness as for instance given by Maynard Smith 1998, in the following way: Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals – for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase “expected number of offspring” means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual.”

Even if the definition is useful in breeding programs, it can hardly be of any use as a basis of a theory of an evolution selecting individuals. It seems to me that this definition denies the fitness of the individual. Nevertheless, the individual fitness is needed, because otherwise the expected average number of offspring from a certain class of individuals can’t be determined. In addition, if it possible to define the fitness of an allele as an average of individual fitness values, then, it must be possible to define the mean fitness of a whole population from such values.

[[Gaussian adaptation]] is based on the selection of individuals using definition given by Hartl, 1981. The fitness of the individual is the probability s(x) that the individual having the n characteristic parameters xT = (x1, x2, …, xn) – where xT is the transpose of x – will survive, i. e. become selected as a parent of new individuals in the progeny. This definition is perhaps less useful in breeding programs, but may be useful in certain philosophical discussions about evolution. If the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, then Gaussian adaptation will perhaps give a more reliable view of evolution.

The image below shows two different cases (upper and lower) of individual selection, where the green points with fitness = 1 - between the two lines - will be selected, while the red points outside with fitness = 0 will not. The centre of gravity, m, of the offspring is fat black and ditto of the parents and offspring in the new generation, m* (according to the Hardy-Weinberg law), is fat red.

[http://www.evolution-in-a-nutshell.se/image001.gif]

Because the fraction of green feasible points is the same in both cases, Fisher’s theorem states that the increase in mean fitness in vertical direction is equal in both upper and lower case. But the phenotypic variance (not considered by Fisher) in the horizontal direction is larger in the lower case, causing m* to considerably move away from the point of intersection of the lines. Thus, if the lines are pushed towards each other (due to arms races between different species), the risk of getting stuck decreases. This represents a considerable increase in mean fitness (assuming phenotypic variances almost constant). Because this gives room for more phenotypic disorder/entropy/diversity, we may expect diversity to increase according to the entropy law, provided that the mutation is sufficiently high.

[[category:science]][[category:evolution]]

Symbiosis

2008-10-24T23:45:53Z

Thinker: inserted a better example of mutualism...there is actually debate over the clownfish/anemone example

'''Symbiosis''' refers to two [[organism]]s of different [[species]] living together in a close relationship.

There are three types of sybiosis: [[mutualism]], [[parasite|parasitism]], and [[commensalism]].

*In the case of mutualism, both organisms benefit from the relationship. For example, corals (Class Anthozoa) often harbor symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae. The corals gain the products of algal photosynthesis (sugars) in an otherwise nutrient-poor environment. The algae gains a steady supply of organic material in the form of waste from the coral. In many cases, mutualism is necessary for the survival of both organisms.

*In a parasitic relationship, one organism benefits while the other suffers. An example is a [[mosquito]] biting a mammal, this provides food for the mosquito but drains blood from the mammal.

*In commensalism, one organism benefits while the other is unaffected. An example is how [[Lichens]] grow on the trunks and branches of trees, this does no harm to the tree but supports the lichens in an area where they can receive sunlight.

These exist on a spectrum, sometimes the relationship between organisms can vary depending on conditions. Vibro bacteria are common in salt water and make up a large part of the digestive tract fauna of many marine organisms, however in high concentrations Quorum sensing genes turn on and the bacteria become aggressive and invade the host tissue.

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5044 Off the menu]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/146/ Nature's Challenge to Evolutionary Theory]

[[Category:Biology]]

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

2008-10-24T23:35:36Z

Thinker: some corrections and formatting

[[Image:Tchaikovsky1.jpg|right]]
'''Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky''' (1840-1893), often referred to as '''Peter Tchaikovsky''', [[Russian]] composer and pianist, is one of the most well-known - and considered to be one of the most “romantic” - of all romantic composers – the archetype of the “tortured soul.”

He began piano lessons at age five, and was said to show “remarkable gifts” though plagued by “abnormal sensitivity”.<ref>Grove Dictionary of Music</ref> He was entered in the School of Jurisprudence at [[St. Petersburg]] when ten; and spent the next 13 years in non-musical study and as a civil servant; before deciding that his course in life would be music and took up studies at the [[St. Petersburg]] Conservatory under [[Anton Rubenstein]]. His music was slow to gain acceptance amongst both the conservative musical establishment and the nationalist group of composers (“the Five”) but his ''First Symphony'' found favour with the public, and the ''“Romeo and Juliet Fantasy Overture”'', written (and reworked more than once) at the suggestion of [[Balakirev]], was a success.

Tchaikovsky’s was the first music from a Russian composer to become popular outside Russia, and it has remained so to this day. His melodic line and orchestral drama overlaid with deep emotional expression can capture those who normally would not be interested in art music. Many of his more popular works are program pieces – the three great ballets, the ''“Romeo and Juliet”'' tone poem mentioned above, two of his operas, the ''“1812 Overture”'' – however his last three symphonies, the ''First Piano Concerto'', and the ''Violin Concerto'' are all mainstays of the orchestral repertoire, and in the top handful of their respective genres.

Tchaikovsky’s works include:
::*Six Symphonies – written throughout his creative life; the last, premiered nine days before his death, since called the ''“Pathetique”'' for its anguished last movement.
::*Two completed ''Piano Concertos''. ''Violin Concerto''. ''“Variations on a Rococo Theme”'' for cello and orchestra is perhaps his most cheerful work.
::*Other orchestral music includes the tone poems ''“Marche Slave”'', ''“Francisca de Rimini”'', ''“Manfred Symphony”'', ''“1812”'' and the three Shakespeare fantasy pieces: ''“Romeo and Juliet”'', ''“The Tempest”'' and ''“Hamlet”''. ''“Capriccio Italienne”'' is a favourite.
::*Of the operas ''“Eugene Onegin”'' and ''“Queen of Spades”''are the two regularly performed.
::*The ballets: ''“Swan Lake”'', ''“The Sleeping Beauty”'' and ''“The Nutcracker”'', whilst not always to his own liking, are all staples of the repertoire.
::*A piano sonata, and other piano works; the most popular of which is the suite: ''“The Seasons”''.
::*Many songs, including ''“None but the Lonely Heart”''; and some choral and liturgical works.
::*One of the more popular ''“Serenades for Strings”''
::*His chamber music includes a piano trio, a string sextet (''“Souvenir of Florence”''), and three string quartets, (The ''“Cavatina”'' movement from the first of these enjoys a “career of its own”. Arrangements abound amongst instrumentalists and ensembles.)

His life was made miserable by his inability to accept his homosexuality. In 1877 he took the desperate step of marrying a besotted music student. The partnership lasted only 11 weeks. His despair found expression in the ''Fourth Symphony'' and ''“Eugene Onegin”''.
More satisfactory was his relationship with Nadezhda von Meck, a wealthy widow, who became his benefactor, and with whom he corresponded for many years. Her financial support allowed him the luxury of artistic freedom and her friendship – though, strangely, they never met – helped emotionally.

In 1893, at the height of a cholera epidemic, he drank unboiled water and died within the week. There has been conjecture on the possibility of suicide. Certainly his last symphony was the work of a profoundly unhappy man, and had been programmed with its last movement entitled “death”.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Composers]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Tchaikovsky, Pyotr}}
[[Category: Composers]]

Concerto

2008-10-24T23:28:46Z

Thinker: more detail and some formatting improvements

The '''concerto''' was originally a work for one or more voices with instrumental accompaniment. During the 17th century it evolved into a form where a single soloist would play with an instrumental ensemble (concerto); or a group of instrumentalists would play with the larger ensemble (''concerto grosso'') in multi-movement orchestral works which featured passages or entire movements designated to be played by solo instruments. In its form, a concerto is a sonata with certain modifications.

1st movement - Sonata form (Exposition, Development, Recapitulation - fast)

2nd movement - Song form, Rondo form or Variation form. Slow

3rd movement - Rondo. Fast

The Minuet and Trio are omitted from the concerto.

*Any portion of a concerto in which the orchestra is employed as a whole and not as an accompaniment is called a '''tutti'''.

==Structure of the concerto==

===Exposition===
# Opening tutti - themes introduced, ends in tonic key
# Solo instrument enters with main subject or an introduction
# Change of material between solo instrument and orchestra
# Exposition closes, short tutti section

===Development===

Solo instrument and orchestra develop theme through various keys relating to the tonic.

===Recapitulation===

# Tutti section, shorter than the exposition and the orchestral tutti is brought to a pause on the 6/4 (second inversion) chord on a strong and dominant bass part
# Solo instrument plays a [[cadenza]], which is usually brilliant and technically elaborate. It is designed to show the virtuosity of the performer and is sometimes composed by the performer.
# A brief tutti section, with or without solo instrument - ending the movement.

==History of the Concerto==

===Origins===

The modern concerto was developed during the [[Baroque]] period under the influence of masters such as [[Antonio Vivaldi]] and [[Johann Sebastian Bach]]. Vivaldi developed a form dubbed the "Italian Form," which standardized the concerto into a three-movement work featuring a fast introduction movement, a slow second movement, and a final quick, dance-like movement. Vivaldi's prolific output included over 250 concerti, such as [[The Four Seasons]] (a series of four concerti featuring a solo violinist), and many other works featuring solo [[flute]] and [[guitar]]/[[lute]]. The "concerto grosso" form was developed in the late 1700s by [[Archangelo Corelli]] and realised its Baroque potential in the opus 3 and opus 6 sets by G.F. [[Handel]]

===The Classical Period===

The concerto underwent a process of formalization and development during the [[Classical]] period, particularly by [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]. A virtuosic musician in addition to composer, Mozart wrote many concerti for a wide variety of instruments, including the [[clarinet]], [[violin]], and [[piano]]. In contrast to earlier concerti from the [[Baroque]] period, Mozart provided a short solo section for a musician to "show off," called a ''cadenza.'' Cadenzas would typically occur after the recapitulation and second development of the first movement (Mozart adopted the sonata form for many individual movements of his concerti), and would be left to the improvisational abilities of the musician. It was understood, however, that the cadenza would refer to and likely further develop thematic material from the actual movement. Mozart did leave a few written cadenzas for his piano concerti.

===The Romantic Period===

During the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] period, the concerto gained much more notoriety due to the introduction of bona-fide [[virtuoso|virtuosi]]. The concerto became one of the highest forms of classical music, and was often a work to be commissioned by individual performers. For example, Joseph Joachim, a famous violinist of the 1800's, commissioned [[Johannes Brahms]] to compose his violin concerto, one of the most highly regarded pieces in the violin repertoire. There was a resurgence of concerto grossi, but typically for smaller groups (no more than two soloists).

During this period, the concerto underwent a massive shift in form and focus. The double exposition of classical concerti fell by the wayside, and many (such as Mendelssohn's violin concerto) bring in the soloist at the very beginning. In addition, the form tended more and more to the symphonic, although the virtuosity of the solo part continued to increase as well. This is perhaps best exemplified by the growth of the cadenza.

Composers begin writing their own, multi-page cadenza, allowing it to serve a functional purpose in the music. Often times, composers would work with whoever commissioned the concerto when writing the cadenza, either to compose to their individual playing styles or to determine what was practical and what was not. The great Romantic concerti - examples of which are [[Antonin Dvorak]]'s [[Cello]] Concerto; [[Felix Mendelssohn]], [[Johannes Brahms]] and [[Pyotr Ilych Tchaikovsky]]'s [[Violin]] Concerti - feature elaborate cadenzas which only the most advanced musicians can attempt to play due to their virtuosity.

===The Concerto today===

Today, the concerto lives as one of the most often-performed styles of music. Many musicians still re-record the same concerti that have been recorded for nearly eight decades, although a practice of composing an individual, unique cadenza has become popular, particularly with violinists such as Joshua Bell. Many of the classical concerti have become standard solos for music students: nearly every Horn player, for example, has learned the Mozart works at some point.

[[Category:Music]]

Talk:Falsifiability of Creation

2008-10-24T23:16:32Z

Thinker:

Evolutionary game theory

2008-10-24T22:52:50Z

Thinker: clarified and removed superfluous citation of Dawkins...he defines an ESS verbatim after Smith and Price

In the field of evolutionary game theory, an '''evolutionarily stable strategy''' or '''ESS''' is one which resists infiltration by other strategies. The concept was proposed by [[population genetics|population geneticists]] [[John Maynard Smith]] and [[George R. Price]]<ref>Maynard Smith, J. and G. R. Price (1973) The logic of animal conflict. ''Nature'' '''246''': 15-18.</ref>. It is important to note that there may be multiple behaviors which could be potential ESSs in a given situation; which one actually prevails is dependent upon the initial conditions of the population.

==See also==
*[[Behavioral ecology]]
*[[Evolutionary biology]]
*[[Game theory]]
*[[Prisoner's dilemma]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
*Maynard Smith, J. (1982) ''Evolution and the Theory of Games''. ISBN 0-521-28884-3

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Digital organisms

2008-10-24T22:45:17Z

Thinker: grammar

A '''digital organism''' is a computer program which is capable of some form of self-replication. Scientists use them in an effort to virtually study the processes of [[evolution]].

One of their most well-known proponents is Professor [[Richard Lenski]].

{{stub}}

[[Category:evolution]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-24T22:10:14Z

Thinker: typo

2008-10-24T19:33:52Z

Thinker:

Direct Fitness

2008-10-24T19:16:43Z

Thinker:

'''Direct Fitness''' or '''Darwinian Fitness''' is a central tenet of the [[Theory of Evolution]]. It is the measure of an individual [[organism|organism's]] ability to reproduce. Direct fitness is measured as the proportion of genes a given individual contributes to the next generation due to its direct reproductive efforts. This can be contrasted with [[inclusive fitness]], which also includes the indirect fitness measure of genes contributed to the next generation based on aid given to relatives that are not direct descendants.

==Misconceptions about fitness==

Fitness is not simply "survival". Rather, it is the number of viable offspring produced by an organism. In other words, fitness (both direct and indirect) can be measured by the number of copies of a gene which are passed on to subsequent generations. Looking at the sheer number of offspring can be misleading, as it ignores how successful those new organisms are.

It is possible for a gene to increase fitness yet actually harm an individual. Such a gene would function by making a host organism more fertile but more susceptible to dying at a younger age. In biological terms, such an organism would still have more fitness.

==Fitness and genes==

Thinking of fitness at the genetic level can simplify this somewhat; a gene has one goal: to create more copies of itself. Thus, the gene is successful if it creates copies which are in turn successful at creating more copies. As the gene, rather than the individual, is the focus of this idea, it avoids the common errors associated with fitness. It also simplifies the apparent dichotomy between direct and indirect fitness: it does not matter what body the gene is residing in. All that matters is how many copies of the gene are created.

==References==

Campbell, N., Reece, J., et al. 2002. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco, California. pp. 1145-1148.

Richard Dawkins; ''The Selfish Gene''; Oxford University Press; Oxford, England; 1976, 2006

[[category:evolution]]

Christianity and science

2008-10-24T18:59:38Z

Thinker: whoops..."Church" should be capitalized, as it refers here to the Roman Catholic Church

[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|175px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
A notable fact in relation to '''Christianity and science''' is that the [[Scientific revolution|birth of modern science]] occurred in the geographic area of [[Christianity|Christianized]] [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref> Christians awed by the grandeur of [[God]]'s creative work have long striven to understand His creativity through [[Science|scientific]] study.

[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution.
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref> He believes that the [[Enlightenment]] was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>.

Indeed, some of the most notable and revolutionary scientists were Christians. [[Nicolaus Copernicus]], who first proposed the heliocentric model of the universe, was an officer of the church. [[Rene Descartes]], who played an integral role in the development of physics, also set about to prove the existence of God in his "Discourse on Methods." [[Gregor Mendel]], who laid the foundations for genetics, was a monk. Although Descartes and the heliocentrists later ran afoul of the Church, the Christian genesis of his and other scientists' work cannot be ignored.

Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states that modern science developed in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe because of the Juedo-Christian beliefs of scientists.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>

Today, the prevalence of belief in God among American scientists is much lower than it is among the American public. <ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html]</ref><ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576]</ref>
==See Also==
*[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:History of Science]]