Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-14T14:20:11Z

Xyrophile: oops, missed a tag

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. He is perhaps the most [[liberal]] senator. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor. Critics in the Republican National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign have alleged that he misrepresented his claim as his official title was that of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> However, the University of Chicago Law School issued the following statement in response to media inquiries about this statement:
"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html University of Chicago Law School Media Page]</ref><ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/28/professor_lecturer/]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-obama-was-a-professor/]</ref><ref>[http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/u_of_chicago_says_obama_was_co.html]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/professor_obama.html]</ref><ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_a_mere_lecturer.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/professor_obama.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama said he did illegal drugs in his high school years and into his college years.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

Obama and the Democrat led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-14T14:17:22Z

Xyrophile: Provided a better sourced version of my last edit. Presumably the authority on professorship at the University of Chicago is... duhhhh The University of Chicago?

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. He is perhaps the most [[liberal]] senator. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor. Critics in the Republican National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign have alleged that he misrepresented his claim as his official title was that of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> However, the University of Chicago Law School issued the following statement in response to media inquiries about this statement:<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html University of Chicago Law School Media Page]</ref><ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/28/professor_lecturer/]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-obama-was-a-professor/]</ref><ref>[http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/u_of_chicago_says_obama_was_co.html]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/professor_obama.html]</ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_a_mere_lecturer.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/professor_obama.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama said he did illegal drugs in his high school years and into his college years.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

Obama and the Democrat led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-14T13:57:20Z

Xyrophile: Removed quotebox as it cause formatting problems

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. He is perhaps the most [[liberal]] senator. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor. Critics in the Republican National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign have alleged that he misrepresented his claim as his official title was that of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> However, the University of Chicago Law School issued the following statement in response to media inquiries about this statement:<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html University of Chicago Law School Media Page]</ref>

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama claimed to being involved in drug use in his high school years and into his college years.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

Obama and the Democrat led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-14T13:56:10Z

Xyrophile: Clarified mistruth in Senior Lecturer section in accordance with Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. The University of Chicago says he was a professor in their faculty.

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. He is perhaps the most [[liberal]] senator. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor. Critics in the Republican National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign have alleged that he misrepresented his claim as his official title was that of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> However, the University of Chicago Law School issued the following statement in response to media inquiries about this statement:<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html University of Chicago Law School Media Page]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.}}

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama claimed to being involved in drug use in his high school years and into his college years.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

Obama and the Democrat led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-13T02:40:27Z

Xyrophile: According to the University of Chicago, Senior Lecturers in their faculty ARE considered professors

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama was a Senior Lecturer from 1992 to 2004 at the University of Chicago. His official title was Senior Lecturer. While some critics have claimed that this position is not equal to that of a professor,<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> the University of Chicago Law School has released a statement affirming that "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors."<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

Obama and the Democrat led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his maintain their faith in Christianity. <ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:29:47Z

Xyrophile: /* Falsifiability */ Corrected ambiguity in definition of falsifiability

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:28:25Z

Xyrophile: /* Falsifiability */

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:16:58Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ Reverted; this section was changed to a completely different (and irrelevant) argument, presumably because this falsification would also falsify microevolution.

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:13:06Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ Reverted from straw man argument conflating convergent evolution with chimerism

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.
:However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:11:30Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ These quotes allege academic misconduct, not that evolution is not falsifiable on these grounds

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
:However, although not "true chimeras", we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.
:However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T15:01:16Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ Neither the fact that an observation would also falsify a competing theory nor the fact that this observation has not been made eliminate falsifiability.

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
:However, although not "true chimeras", we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.
:However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T14:56:48Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ Changed Haldane quote to accurately reflect the definiton of falsifiability.

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.
: However, we already know that mutations accumulate, and this proposed falsification fails to distinguish between evolution and competing views such as creation, so is a rather weak falsification at best.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
:However, although not "true chimeras", we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.
:However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T14:53:39Z

Xyrophile: /* Proposed Tests and Observations */ Feasability is not a criterion of falsifiability

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature. Of course, because all possible evolutionary explanations for their development have not been ruled out, evolutionists will not consider this a falsification, demonstrating that proposed falsification tests can be easily rejected once they fail.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.
: However, we already know that mutations accumulate, and this proposed falsification fails to distinguish between evolution and competing views such as creation, so is a rather weak falsification at best.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
:However, although not "true chimeras", we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.

* Direct observation of organisms being created.
:However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T14:50:24Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". The Bible is similarly comprised of a collection of books which are a collection of verses.

A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. Unlike the Bible, evolutionary theory does not claim to be Inerrant. An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on. And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''
:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories? Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell? Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection? If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it. But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean: what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven? How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails. Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection. They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent.
::::According to Steven J Gould: "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." - "Evolution as Fact and Theory", May 1981.
::::http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary.biology
::::http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/ [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::But my friend, that wasn't the question:). I know there are arguments out there in favor of universal common ancestry. There are also arguments against it. But is the proposition ''falsifiable''? What experiment could be performed to prove it ''wrong?'' That's the issue here. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions. There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell. Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion." But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism. When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation. For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood." A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion. And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen." The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science. Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations. The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared. The earth revolves relative to the sun. The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels. There's no doubt. There's no interpretation. The answers are right up there for us to see and test. ''That's'' what falsifiable science is. The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited. Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism." They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof." But there are two problems with this. First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection." Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''' What do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::What is the force of gravity on the mars? How do you know?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::Approx .38G at the equator. I know because if the gravity calcs were off, the spacecraft orbiting and landing on it would not have been successful. Also readings from Mars Global Surveyor. Those readings are testable. That's falsifiable science. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10-3G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''. From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:

The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.

The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.

When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.

Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.

Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.

Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. Why? Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is impossible, because someone can always say "Maybe we just don't know how yet!" I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Religion bending to science ===

Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]

Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:

"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."

The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.

As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.

We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.

The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.
: As for the rest of your post...
: "''...religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice.''": On the contrary, natural selection was first described by a creationist. So there's been no "concession" there.
: "''...scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims.''": I'd love to know what you are talking about here. Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''. And I know of nothing since that fits your description. The only things that "science" has "discovered" that ''some'' religious groups have conceded to are things like evolution, which is not a ''discovery'' but a ''explanation'' of how we came to be.
: "''In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society ...''": Biblical Christianity is not "evolving". It stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.
: "''...it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society''": The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview. The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.
: "''Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.''": Yet there was very little of that going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

For the sake of argument, assume that all the theories contained by evolution are false. What now? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.

:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.

:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is science? ==

Falsifiablity is only one criteria for scientific discovery.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/science.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/whatissci.cfm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0025.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557105

[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
: Falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for a particular proposition to be scientific. The point of this article is that the controversial aspects of evolution are not falsifiable. The fact that aspects of creationism are also not falsifiable (which is not in dispute) does not change the fact that ''evolution'' is not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Edit summary ==

Rewrote definition of falsifiability as the corrent definition is incorrect; falsifiability is NOT a complete test of the scientific validity of a concept in and of itself, and not strictly necessary for a proposition to be considered scientific except in the philosophy of science of certain non-bayensians.

Updated definitions of evolution to reflect current trends in biological research.

Elaborated on possible tests of evolution

Provided context for quotes from evolutionists.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I like some of your wording changes, but other of your changes are more problematic. For example, you say "''However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept ...''", as though the previous paragraph said that natural selection ''was'' the sole factor. But it didn't. It said "''if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended ... '''by variation and''' natural selection alone''" (my emphasis). So your "rebuttal" of the previous paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. And it merely points out that ''particular models'' of evolution make some testable predictions, ignoring that the whole point is that evolution is so flexible that ''evolution itself'' is not thereby challenged, just the particular models.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I'll try to address your concerns as best I can here:

I think a great deal of the problem is a lack of distinction between three concepts: evolution, natural selection and common origin. While all three support each other, they're separate concepts that are all being lumped together and referred to as evolution.

The Merriam Webster's applicable definition of evolution is as follows (the other definitions are unrelated to biology):

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Essentially, this is in line with the first definition of evolution, and essentially regarded as fact by most scientists.

Natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which evolution may occur. I'm pretty sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't bother detailing it, but the important distinction is that disproving natural selection does not mean disproving evolution. The other important point on natural selection is that modern evolutionary theory has itself evolved and only considers natural selection one of many forces driving evolution. For instance, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer revealed that DNA can actually be exchanged between different organisms coming into contact with each other. There are a host of factors at play beyond natural selection and variation by mutation, so this aspect of the definition is somewhat misleading.

The theory of common descent of course is the theory that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, which is the point the second definition speaks to. It's important to realize that this is not the same thing as the most primitive form of life or the first living organism. In fact, research supports the theory that our common ancestor was not a "protocell" or even a single celled being, but a primitive multicellular organism: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854]
However, common descent is not necessary for evolution to hold, and the opposite is true as well; it's hypothetically possible for the descendants of a single ancestor to be wildly different for reasons unrelated to evolution. After all, if you're a creationist, you must believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Transformationism is the idea that organisms can evolve, but have evolved from multiple ancestors instead of a common one.

* The test of falsifiability is simply whether a theory could POTENTIALLY be falsified based on a test of its predictions. If it IS falsified, the next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies. Theories are not static, unchanging things, but working models that are adjusted to account for observation. That being said, the argument about wheels and magnets is essentially an older version of the doctrine of intelligent design; namely that the discovery of biological structures with no possible evolutionary path would invalidate evolution. The discovery of wheels and magnets in nature has nothing to do with evolution unless we're talking about wheels and magnets in biological structures, and even then, only if no reason could be found that a less evolved structure could be advantageous. The existence of wheels and magnets alone, even in a biological structure would NOT be a test of evolution. Unfortunately the current treatment of Haldane's quote lacks the context to make this distinction.

* All the proposed tests are logically possible, but not necessarily logistically. This isn't a strike against the theory though because falsifiability only requires that the theory be CAPABLE of being tested, not necessarily testable with our current technology. Testing the theory of relativity requires either the technology to accelerate matter to fantastic speeds and incredibly accurate clocks. Had we not invented particle accelerators or atomic clocks, it's likely we still would not have tested Einstein's theories. That being said, the lack of this technology would not have affected the falsifiability of relativity. Testable predictions do NOT need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. The example of gravity in this article is a perfect example of this. The theory of gravitation predicts the rate at which an apple will fall from a tree (possibly injuring any physicists sitting beneath it) and because this can be tested the theory is falsifiable. However, it does not rule out the possibility that said apple falls to the ground for reason other than gravity. The discovery that mutations can't accumulate is actually would falsify evolution wholesale, and so it's a legitimate test, just as testing whether apples don't fall. The fact that the results of the test do not falsify the theory is irrelevant. If the question is whether the overarching theory of evolution can potentially be falsified, testing whether mutations can accumulate within a species is a valid test, not just hand waving.

* The platypus is a monotreme like the echidnas (which also lay eggs.) While its bill superficially resembles that of a bird, it's actually an elongated pliable snout with covered in sensitive skin. Its spines are poisonous, but the venom is chemically unlike that of snakes and reptiles, or any other animal for that matter. A true chimera would incorporate elements that were structurally, not just superficially, identical. Similarity is not enough to qualify as a chimera, and not all chimeras would falsify evolution. The lineage of monotremes diverges from that of other mammals from a point far in prehistory when mammals first began to evolve from reptiles, explaining why they share characteristics with them (i.e. laying eggs.) The discovery of a chimera composed of elements from organisms whose phylogeny is widely divergent would thereby disprove evolution.

* Direct observation: If we observed new organisms being created that did not inherit characteristics of their progenitors, clearly evolution would be disproven.

* Dissimilar DNA: if an organism was shown to be less similar to a phylogenetically close organism than a phylogenetically distant one, evolution would be disproved. Example: if humans were found to be more similar genetically to chickens than apes.

If you read Whitten's quote carefully, you'll not he speaks about challenging "the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution" and not about evolution per se. The article is about the institutional bias against challenging established viewpoints. In his original quote, you note that he states "they may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions." If it's even possible to test these predictions, clearly evolution is falsifiable! [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that ''everything'' (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you ''still'' haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be ''able'' to falsify it.
: As for "research" supporting a theory of a multicellular organism, the paper you linked to seems to be very short on actual research! Rather, it is wild imagination, a just-so story.
: The wheels and magnets ''are'' in biological structures. The rest of that paragraph of yours basically tried to explain away the fact that a proposed falsification of evolution ''was'' put to the test, evolution failed, but evolution was not thereby falsified! So if falsification tests manage to falsify, but the theory stands anyway, why should we believe that any ''other'' proposed falsifications would actually have the potential to falsify evolution? I've had several people put to me that finding dinosaur fossils in recent strata would falsify it, but I have absolutely no doubt that if such were found (and something equivalent ''has'' been found), evolution would not be falsified, because it would be quite easy to simply say that they didn't die out 65 million years ago after all, without discarding evolution itself.
: You make an interesting point about the difference between logically-possible and logistically-possible falsifications. I'm not disagreeing, but wonder where that leads. Does that mean that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is falsifiable because, logically though not logistically, we could one day invent a time machine and go back and observe it happening (or not happening)? Or does the falsifiability of creation depend on current thinking about the theoretical possibility of time travel (which has wavered between it not being possible to it being theoretically possible)?
: I understand what you are getting at with potential falsifiability and accumulation of mutations, but let me put an absurd example to you so that I can see how you explain it. Creation (the alternative to evolution that so many say is unscientific because it's not falsifiable) predicts that we exist. Because we can test if we exist, creation is therefore falsifiable. I could probably think of a slightly less absurd example, but hopefully that makes the point.
: I understand why the platypus is not a true chimera, but the point of the chimera example is that evolution supposedly cannot explain it. Neither can it adequately explain many other similarities not due to common descent, but evolution is not thereby falsified, because someone can always invent ''some'' explanation, no matter how fanciful. Also, the chimera example says "chimeras ... unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis". Is such a thing ''possible''? That is, is it ''possible'' to have chimeras ''unable to be explained'' in an evolutionary context? I doubt it, and that's part of the example being contrived. If they occurred, evolutionists would come up with ''some'' explanation. That's the point: it's so flexible it can explain ''anything''. So the argument amounts to saying, "Evolution would be falsified if there something was discovered that couldn't be explained by evolution". Duh!
: Your "explanation" of the direct observation of creation does not explain why evolution would be falsified.
: And the dissimilar DNA argument is just as silly. It basically says that if two organisms were found to be more similar than expected according to the evolutionary family tree (i.e. common descent), then evolution would be wrong. But this has been found numerous times. All that happens is that the family tree is rearranged (you said yourself that the "next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies") rather than evolution being discarded.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::"(although many evolutionists conflate the two)," - not to mention many creationists. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Amateur creationists, perhaps, but not the leading ones such as those with Creation Ministries International, the Institution for Creation Research, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: So do you assert that the leading evolutionists make this mistake as well? If so, do you care to name a few examples? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Essentially, yes. I can't recall any particular ones at the moment, other than what's mentioned in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ this article] (search for "As does CMI", and read that and the next paragraph). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

-
The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable! If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution. This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them. That being said, this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future. It's an argument fundamentally based on ignorance, and it's part of the reason ID is so derided.

The arguments about strata are weak too, because there are a host of processes that could account for the distribution of anomalous fossils, one of which is a simple misunderstanding of when species went extinct.

6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable; the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this. The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.

Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution, an organism would have to incorporate elements of multiple organisms that are widely separated phylogenetically. This means completely identical; it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations. It would falsify evolution to come across a centaur and discover its genome was composed of sections of human DNA and horse DNA, because both evolutionary lines diverged. However, finding a centaur with a unique genome would not falsify evolution.

Evolutionary would be falsified in my example of direct evolution because evolution predicts that organisms inherit characteristics or their progenitors. If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation) Essentially, the argument is that if direct observation contradicted evolution's model of heredity (currently the mendellian genetic model) evolution would be disproven.

The phylogenetic tree predates evolutionary theory actually. It's primarily based on morphology (observation of similar characteristics.) The reason that it's important to evolutionary theory is that evolution predicts this sort of heirarchy, predicts that it's because of common descent, and predicts that the distance on this tree will be reflected on the genetic tree of life. While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy. However, testing the genetic distance between organisms we are reasonably certain are correctly classified and comparing it to the phylogenetic distance allows us to test evolution's prediction that genetics will reflect phylogeny.

While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!''": Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not. As you said, "While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.". And that's precisely the point: Evolution would ''not'' be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself. Even if ''all'' past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory. You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case. You failed, by the way, to directly answer my point about creation being falsifiable ''because we exist'' (more on that below), as well as my question about it being falsifiable by time travel.
:"''The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them.''": Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalised away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalised away? You've already admitted that they would be ("...the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.").
:"''...this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future.''": Again, my point: ''nothing'' can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalisation that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.
:"''6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...''": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
:"''...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.''": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
:"''The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.''": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.
:"''Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.''": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?
:"''To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...''": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations''": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are ''presuming'' that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever ''observed'' two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.
:"''If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...''": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.''": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would ''not'' disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".
:"''While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...''": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is ''agreeing'' that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions ''would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself''!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it? Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.", or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

''Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not.''

This is a straw man argument; you're saying the theory of evolution can't be falsified because we can't falsify formulations of the theory that nobody has thought of yet. No theory could ever be falsifiable by this definition!

''And that's precisely the point: Evolution would not be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself.''

Why on earth would falsifying a theory mean we discard it entirely? Until the discovery of the electron 1897, atomic theory held that atoms were indivisible, the smallest possible form of matter. When the discovery of the electron falsified this, the theory was adjusted to reflect this new information. However, the concept of the atom was not abandoned, simply an untrue proposition about its properties.

''Even if all past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory.''

You're making a critical error here; theories are not static things. Scientists will continue refining the theory of evolution unless it reaches a dead end.

''You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case.''

But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability. The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test. To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.

''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''

A theory's falsification does not mean the theory is to be discarded unless the theory can't be modified to account for the results. Science is based on the concept of empirical knowledge. The theories we consider true today stand on the shoulders of those disproven in the past. See the example of the atom above.

''Again, my point: nothing can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalization that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.''

This doesn't make sense. You appear to have misunderstood what falsification is. Older syntheses of the theory of evolution have been falsified already, and the current synthesis is as falsifiable as they were.

''"6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
"...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
"The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.''

The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because of the dates; they are the proposition that can be tested. The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless. Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process. If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect. For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?

''"Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existence of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?''

No. The presuppositions in a theory are part of the theory itself. If I formulate the theory that "The sky is blue because God decreed it so," does going outside and observing a blue sky prove the existence of God? The theory hinges on the existence of God, so it could be rewritten as "God exists, and decreed the sky to be blue." This theory makes the prediction that the sky is blue, which is correct, but its still not falsifiable because no possible observation exists that could disprove the existence of a God who does not wish to be found. I think you can see pretty clearly how this analog maps to creationism, or any other theory involving God.

''"To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".''

I suppose the correct wording here is "to a degree sufficient to falsify the current theory."

''"...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are presuming that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever observed two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.''

Species of spiders, snakes and shellfish all have developed
poison to defend themselves from predators and assist them in hunting prey, but all of them have developed this ability independently of each other.

''"If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".

Sorry, this one actually was incorrect; I brought up the blondes and brown haired child by accident, having confused it with blue and brown eyes, a classic example taught in genetics classes. Essentially, eye colour is regulated by not one, but two alleles on the locus. To have blue eyes, both must be the allele for blue eyes; if one or the other is not, a different eye colour is produced. We each carry one of these genes from each of our parents.
If both of your parents were blue eyed, then all four alleles in the pool of possible alleles to pass down to you specify blue eyes. Logically then, you must also have blue eyes, because there's no combination of alleles that could be passed to you without causing blue eyes. If you were born with brown eyes, one of three things must have happened. Either some sort of mutation must have happened to alter your genotype during or after the combination of those genes, you must have received genetic information from a source other than your parents such as lateral gene transfer or your eye colour must not be a hereditary characteristic. If the latter is the case, evolution would be falsified.
Numerous tests exist to detect mutation, and lateral gene transfer is also testable, so it's possible to test which of these causes is responsable.

''"While rearrangements have occurred, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would not disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".''

The rearrangements in the phylogenetic tree I'm talking about are rearrangements among close cousins, not massive changes like saying birds are descended from apes. If we found genetic evidence of this, evolution would be falsified.

''"While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is agreeing that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it?''

You've misunderstood the consequences of falsification in science. The basic concept of evolution would only be discarded if the process of formulation/falsification/adjustment/reformu
lation reached a dead end in which no possible adjustment of the theory could account for the observations we've made, or a competing theory was developed that better explained those observations. However, the theory could still be falsifiable at every step along the way; indeed it must be for the cycle to continue. This is true for ALL science, not just evolution.

''Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.",''

Can you find a source for this quote other than a creationist website? Do you know of anywhere it's possible to aquire the edition of the Origin of the Species he supposedly stated it in? The guys at talk.origins tried and failed: [ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81]

''or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"''

An exhaustively researched explanation of this quote is available at [http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html]. Taken in the proper context, Watson does not state that the evidence isn't there to support evolution, he simply states that the only competing theories are evolution and creation, and that zoologists thus support evolution by the process of elimination, due to the numerous problems with creationism as a scientific paradigm.

I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-12T14:48:29Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". The Bible is similarly comprised of a collection of books which are a collection of verses.

A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. Unlike the Bible, evolutionary theory does not claim to be Inerrant. An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on. And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''
:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories? Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell? Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection? If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it. But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean: what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven? How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails. Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection. They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent.
::::According to Steven J Gould: "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." - "Evolution as Fact and Theory", May 1981.
::::http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary.biology
::::http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/ [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::But my friend, that wasn't the question:). I know there are arguments out there in favor of universal common ancestry. There are also arguments against it. But is the proposition ''falsifiable''? What experiment could be performed to prove it ''wrong?'' That's the issue here. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions. There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell. Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion." But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism. When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation. For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood." A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion. And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen." The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science. Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations. The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared. The earth revolves relative to the sun. The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels. There's no doubt. There's no interpretation. The answers are right up there for us to see and test. ''That's'' what falsifiable science is. The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited. Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism." They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof." But there are two problems with this. First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection." Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''' What do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::What is the force of gravity on the mars? How do you know?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::Approx .38G at the equator. I know because if the gravity calcs were off, the spacecraft orbiting and landing on it would not have been successful. Also readings from Mars Global Surveyor. Those readings are testable. That's falsifiable science. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10-3G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''. From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:

The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.

The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.

When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.

Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.

Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.

Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. Why? Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is impossible, because someone can always say "Maybe we just don't know how yet!" I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Religion bending to science ===

Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]

Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:

"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."

The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.

As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.

We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.

The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.
: As for the rest of your post...
: "''...religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice.''": On the contrary, natural selection was first described by a creationist. So there's been no "concession" there.
: "''...scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims.''": I'd love to know what you are talking about here. Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''. And I know of nothing since that fits your description. The only things that "science" has "discovered" that ''some'' religious groups have conceded to are things like evolution, which is not a ''discovery'' but a ''explanation'' of how we came to be.
: "''In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society ...''": Biblical Christianity is not "evolving". It stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.
: "''...it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society''": The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview. The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.
: "''Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.''": Yet there was very little of that going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

For the sake of argument, assume that all the theories contained by evolution are false. What now? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.

:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.

:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is science? ==

Falsifiablity is only one criteria for scientific discovery.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/science.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/whatissci.cfm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0025.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557105

[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
: Falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for a particular proposition to be scientific. The point of this article is that the controversial aspects of evolution are not falsifiable. The fact that aspects of creationism are also not falsifiable (which is not in dispute) does not change the fact that ''evolution'' is not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Edit summary ==

Rewrote definition of falsifiability as the corrent definition is incorrect; falsifiability is NOT a complete test of the scientific validity of a concept in and of itself, and not strictly necessary for a proposition to be considered scientific except in the philosophy of science of certain non-bayensians.

Updated definitions of evolution to reflect current trends in biological research.

Elaborated on possible tests of evolution

Provided context for quotes from evolutionists.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I like some of your wording changes, but other of your changes are more problematic. For example, you say "''However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept ...''", as though the previous paragraph said that natural selection ''was'' the sole factor. But it didn't. It said "''if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended ... '''by variation and''' natural selection alone''" (my emphasis). So your "rebuttal" of the previous paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. And it merely points out that ''particular models'' of evolution make some testable predictions, ignoring that the whole point is that evolution is so flexible that ''evolution itself'' is not thereby challenged, just the particular models.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I'll try to address your concerns as best I can here:

I think a great deal of the problem is a lack of distinction between three concepts: evolution, natural selection and common origin. While all three support each other, they're separate concepts that are all being lumped together and referred to as evolution.

The Merriam Webster's applicable definition of evolution is as follows (the other definitions are unrelated to biology):

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Essentially, this is in line with the first definition of evolution, and essentially regarded as fact by most scientists.

Natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which evolution may occur. I'm pretty sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't bother detailing it, but the important distinction is that disproving natural selection does not mean disproving evolution. The other important point on natural selection is that modern evolutionary theory has itself evolved and only considers natural selection one of many forces driving evolution. For instance, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer revealed that DNA can actually be exchanged between different organisms coming into contact with each other. There are a host of factors at play beyond natural selection and variation by mutation, so this aspect of the definition is somewhat misleading.

The theory of common descent of course is the theory that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, which is the point the second definition speaks to. It's important to realize that this is not the same thing as the most primitive form of life or the first living organism. In fact, research supports the theory that our common ancestor was not a "protocell" or even a single celled being, but a primitive multicellular organism: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854]
However, common descent is not necessary for evolution to hold, and the opposite is true as well; it's hypothetically possible for the descendants of a single ancestor to be wildly different for reasons unrelated to evolution. After all, if you're a creationist, you must believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Transformationism is the idea that organisms can evolve, but have evolved from multiple ancestors instead of a common one.

* The test of falsifiability is simply whether a theory could POTENTIALLY be falsified based on a test of its predictions. If it IS falsified, the next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies. Theories are not static, unchanging things, but working models that are adjusted to account for observation. That being said, the argument about wheels and magnets is essentially an older version of the doctrine of intelligent design; namely that the discovery of biological structures with no possible evolutionary path would invalidate evolution. The discovery of wheels and magnets in nature has nothing to do with evolution unless we're talking about wheels and magnets in biological structures, and even then, only if no reason could be found that a less evolved structure could be advantageous. The existence of wheels and magnets alone, even in a biological structure would NOT be a test of evolution. Unfortunately the current treatment of Haldane's quote lacks the context to make this distinction.

* All the proposed tests are logically possible, but not necessarily logistically. This isn't a strike against the theory though because falsifiability only requires that the theory be CAPABLE of being tested, not necessarily testable with our current technology. Testing the theory of relativity requires either the technology to accelerate matter to fantastic speeds and incredibly accurate clocks. Had we not invented particle accelerators or atomic clocks, it's likely we still would not have tested Einstein's theories. That being said, the lack of this technology would not have affected the falsifiability of relativity. Testable predictions do NOT need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. The example of gravity in this article is a perfect example of this. The theory of gravitation predicts the rate at which an apple will fall from a tree (possibly injuring any physicists sitting beneath it) and because this can be tested the theory is falsifiable. However, it does not rule out the possibility that said apple falls to the ground for reason other than gravity. The discovery that mutations can't accumulate is actually would falsify evolution wholesale, and so it's a legitimate test, just as testing whether apples don't fall. The fact that the results of the test do not falsify the theory is irrelevant. If the question is whether the overarching theory of evolution can potentially be falsified, testing whether mutations can accumulate within a species is a valid test, not just hand waving.

* The platypus is a monotreme like the echidnas (which also lay eggs.) While its bill superficially resembles that of a bird, it's actually an elongated pliable snout with covered in sensitive skin. Its spines are poisonous, but the venom is chemically unlike that of snakes and reptiles, or any other animal for that matter. A true chimera would incorporate elements that were structurally, not just superficially, identical. Similarity is not enough to qualify as a chimera, and not all chimeras would falsify evolution. The lineage of monotremes diverges from that of other mammals from a point far in prehistory when mammals first began to evolve from reptiles, explaining why they share characteristics with them (i.e. laying eggs.) The discovery of a chimera composed of elements from organisms whose phylogeny is widely divergent would thereby disprove evolution.

* Direct observation: If we observed new organisms being created that did not inherit characteristics of their progenitors, clearly evolution would be disproven.

* Dissimilar DNA: if an organism was shown to be less similar to a phylogenetically close organism than a phylogenetically distant one, evolution would be disproved. Example: if humans were found to be more similar genetically to chickens than apes.

If you read Whitten's quote carefully, you'll not he speaks about challenging "the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution" and not about evolution per se. The article is about the institutional bias against challenging established viewpoints. In his original quote, you note that he states "they may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions." If it's even possible to test these predictions, clearly evolution is falsifiable! [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that ''everything'' (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you ''still'' haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be ''able'' to falsify it.
: As for "research" supporting a theory of a multicellular organism, the paper you linked to seems to be very short on actual research! Rather, it is wild imagination, a just-so story.
: The wheels and magnets ''are'' in biological structures. The rest of that paragraph of yours basically tried to explain away the fact that a proposed falsification of evolution ''was'' put to the test, evolution failed, but evolution was not thereby falsified! So if falsification tests manage to falsify, but the theory stands anyway, why should we believe that any ''other'' proposed falsifications would actually have the potential to falsify evolution? I've had several people put to me that finding dinosaur fossils in recent strata would falsify it, but I have absolutely no doubt that if such were found (and something equivalent ''has'' been found), evolution would not be falsified, because it would be quite easy to simply say that they didn't die out 65 million years ago after all, without discarding evolution itself.
: You make an interesting point about the difference between logically-possible and logistically-possible falsifications. I'm not disagreeing, but wonder where that leads. Does that mean that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is falsifiable because, logically though not logistically, we could one day invent a time machine and go back and observe it happening (or not happening)? Or does the falsifiability of creation depend on current thinking about the theoretical possibility of time travel (which has wavered between it not being possible to it being theoretically possible)?
: I understand what you are getting at with potential falsifiability and accumulation of mutations, but let me put an absurd example to you so that I can see how you explain it. Creation (the alternative to evolution that so many say is unscientific because it's not falsifiable) predicts that we exist. Because we can test if we exist, creation is therefore falsifiable. I could probably think of a slightly less absurd example, but hopefully that makes the point.
: I understand why the platypus is not a true chimera, but the point of the chimera example is that evolution supposedly cannot explain it. Neither can it adequately explain many other similarities not due to common descent, but evolution is not thereby falsified, because someone can always invent ''some'' explanation, no matter how fanciful. Also, the chimera example says "chimeras ... unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis". Is such a thing ''possible''? That is, is it ''possible'' to have chimeras ''unable to be explained'' in an evolutionary context? I doubt it, and that's part of the example being contrived. If they occurred, evolutionists would come up with ''some'' explanation. That's the point: it's so flexible it can explain ''anything''. So the argument amounts to saying, "Evolution would be falsified if there something was discovered that couldn't be explained by evolution". Duh!
: Your "explanation" of the direct observation of creation does not explain why evolution would be falsified.
: And the dissimilar DNA argument is just as silly. It basically says that if two organisms were found to be more similar than expected according to the evolutionary family tree (i.e. common descent), then evolution would be wrong. But this has been found numerous times. All that happens is that the family tree is rearranged (you said yourself that the "next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies") rather than evolution being discarded.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::"(although many evolutionists conflate the two)," - not to mention many creationists. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Amateur creationists, perhaps, but not the leading ones such as those with Creation Ministries International, the Institution for Creation Research, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: So do you assert that the leading evolutionists make this mistake as well? If so, do you care to name a few examples? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Essentially, yes. I can't recall any particular ones at the moment, other than what's mentioned in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ this article] (search for "As does CMI", and read that and the next paragraph). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

-
The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable! If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution. This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them. That being said, this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future. It's an argument fundamentally based on ignorance, and it's part of the reason ID is so derided.

The arguments about strata are weak too, because there are a host of processes that could account for the distribution of anomalous fossils, one of which is a simple misunderstanding of when species went extinct.

6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable; the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this. The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.

Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution, an organism would have to incorporate elements of multiple organisms that are widely separated phylogenetically. This means completely identical; it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations. It would falsify evolution to come across a centaur and discover its genome was composed of sections of human DNA and horse DNA, because both evolutionary lines diverged. However, finding a centaur with a unique genome would not falsify evolution.

Evolutionary would be falsified in my example of direct evolution because evolution predicts that organisms inherit characteristics or their progenitors. If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation) Essentially, the argument is that if direct observation contradicted evolution's model of heredity (currently the mendellian genetic model) evolution would be disproven.

The phylogenetic tree predates evolutionary theory actually. It's primarily based on morphology (observation of similar characteristics.) The reason that it's important to evolutionary theory is that evolution predicts this sort of heirarchy, predicts that it's because of common descent, and predicts that the distance on this tree will be reflected on the genetic tree of life. While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy. However, testing the genetic distance between organisms we are reasonably certain are correctly classified and comparing it to the phylogenetic distance allows us to test evolution's prediction that genetics will reflect phylogeny.

While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!''": Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not. As you said, "While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.". And that's precisely the point: Evolution would ''not'' be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself. Even if ''all'' past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory. You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case. You failed, by the way, to directly answer my point about creation being falsifiable ''because we exist'' (more on that below), as well as my question about it being falsifiable by time travel.
:"''The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them.''": Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalised away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalised away? You've already admitted that they would be ("...the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.").
:"''...this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future.''": Again, my point: ''nothing'' can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalisation that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.
:"''6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...''": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
:"''...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.''": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
:"''The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.''": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.
:"''Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.''": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?
:"''To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...''": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations''": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are ''presuming'' that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever ''observed'' two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.
:"''If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...''": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.''": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would ''not'' disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".
:"''While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...''": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is ''agreeing'' that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions ''would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself''!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it? Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.", or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

''Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not.''

This is a straw man argument; you're saying the theory of evolution can't be falsified because we can't falsify formulations of the theory that nobody has thought of yet. No theory could ever be falsifiable by this definition!

''And that's precisely the point: Evolution would not be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself.''

Why on earth would falsifying a theory mean we discard it entirely? Until the discovery of the electron 1897, atomic theory held that atoms were indivisible, the smallest possible form of matter. When the discovery of the electron falsified this, the theory was adjusted to reflect this new information. However, the concept of the atom was not abandoned, simply an untrue proposition about its properties.

''Even if all past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory.''

You're making a critical error here; theories are not static things. Scientists will continue refining the theory of evolution unless it reaches a dead end.

''You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case.''

But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability. The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test. To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation
exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.

''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''

A theory's falsification does not mean the theory is to be discarded unless the theory can't be modified to account for the results. Science is based on the concept of empirical knowledge. The theories we consider true today stand on the shoulders of those disproven in the past. See the example of the atom above.

''Again, my point: nothing can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalization that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.''

This doesn't make sense. You appear to have misunderstood what falsification is. Older syntheses of the theory of evolution have been falsified already, and the current synthesis is as falsifiable as they were.

''"6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
"...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
"The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.''

The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because of the dates; they are the proposition that can be tested. The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless. Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process. If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect. For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?

''"Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existence of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?''

No. The presuppositions in a theory are part of the theory itself. If I formulate the theory that "The sky is blue because God decreed it so," does going outside and observing a blue sky prove the existence of God? The theory hinges on the existence of God, so it could be rewritten as "God exists, and decreed the sky to be blue." This theory makes the prediction that the sky is blue, which is correct, but its still not falsifiable because no possible observation exists that could disprove the existence of a God who does not wish to be found. I think you can see pretty clearly how this analog maps to creationism, or any other theory involving God.

''"To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".''

I suppose the correct wording here is "to a degree sufficient to falsify the current theory."

''"...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are presuming that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever observed two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.''

Species of spiders, snakes and shellfish all have developed
poison to defend themselves from predators and assist them in hunting prey, but all of them have developed this ability independently of each other.

''"If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".

Sorry, this one actually was incorrect; I brought up the blondes and brown haired child by accident, having confused it with blue and brown eyes, a classic example taught in genetics classes. Essentially, eye colour is regulated by not one, but two alleles on the locus. To have blue eyes, both must be the allele for blue eyes; if one or the other is not, a different eye colour is produced. We each carry one of these genes from each of our parents.
If both of your parents were blue eyed, then all four alleles in the pool of possible alleles to pass down to you specify blue eyes. Logically then, you must also have blue eyes, because there's no combination of alleles that could be passed to you without causing blue eyes. If you were born with brown eyes, one of three things must have happened. Either some sort of mutation must have happened to alter your genotype during or after the combination of those genes, you must have received genetic information from a source other than your parents such as lateral gene transfer or your eye colour must not be a hereditary characteristic. If the latter is the case, evolution would be falsified.
Numerous tests exist to detect mutation, and lateral gene transfer is also testable, so it's possible to test which of these causes is responsable.

''"While rearrangements have occurred, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would not disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".''

The rearrangements in the phylogenetic tree I'm talking about are rearrangements among close cousins, not massive changes like saying birds are descended from apes. If we found genetic evidence of this, evolution would be falsified.

''"While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is agreeing that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it?''

You've misunderstood the consequences of falsification in science. The basic concept of evolution would only be discarded if the process of formulation/falsification/adjustment/reformu
lation reached a dead end in which no possible adjustment of the theory could account for the observations we've made, or a competing theory was developed that better explained those observations. However, the theory could still be falsifiable at every step along the way; indeed it must be for the cycle to continue. This is true for ALL science, not just evolution.

''Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.",''

Can you find a source for this quote other than a creationist website? Do you know of anywhere it's possible to aquire the edition of the Origin of the Species he supposedly stated it in? The guys at talk.origins tried and failed: [ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81]

''or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"''

An exhaustively researched explanation of this quote is available at [http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html]. Taken in the proper context, Watson does not state that the evidence isn't there to support evolution, he simply states that the only competing theories are evolution and creation, and that zoologists thus support evolution by the process of elimination, due to the numerous problems with creationism as a scientific paradigm.

I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-11T21:25:48Z

Xyrophile: /* Religious affiliations */ Reordered page, removed innacurate information and provided references.

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama served as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 at the University of Chicago, a position regarded as equivalent to a professor. <ref>[[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for 3.5 years, having first served in statewide office beginning in 2005. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the anti-war supporters. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam. It is clear that Obama would have participated in school days off for observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

June 2008, Senator Barack Obama voted with the Democratic party not to extend the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Senate_Democrats_taxes/2008/06/09/102869.html</ref> In voting for killing the tax cuts, 48 million married couples will pay an additional $3,000 in taxes annually. A single parent with two children earning $30,000 per year will pay an additional $1,600 annually. Those elderly retirees over 65 years old will pay an additional $2,181 in taxes annually. A family of four earning just $50,000. will see their taxes increase 191% annually. Barack wants you to know that the rich need to start paying their fair share of taxes. By not extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the burdens placed upon blue collar and lower middle-class families.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> As of June 2008, Planned Parenthood has not formally endorsed Barack but will do so as soon as it can be coordinated with Obama's campaign. Obama has advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref> His statement reflects that if one of his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, Obama would support terminating the life of his grandchild.

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing. PolitiFact.com, on behalf of St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly, investigated the claim and stated, "we find Obama's claim of two decades of experience to be accurate. We also find that just about all of his experience is in the field of public service, education or civil rights law." <ref> [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/07/obamas-20-years-experience/],http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/07/obamas-20-years-experience/, Obama's twenty years of experience, May 7,2008</ref>

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Barack Obama now uses [[Liberal obfuscation]] when claiming to be a military supporter. As of 2008, he now supports the military and it's funding as long as America commits to the upgraded GI Bill.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/05/22/mccain,_obama_spar_on_gi_bill]</ref> This bill essentially adds $50 billion over 10 years as added benefits to our sworn military personnel. Democrats created this as political tool to use against the GOP presidential nominee, who opposes, and to remind America that the Democrats support the troops. If you look closely, you will notice that the Pentagon, the Generals and the military commanders in theatre, do not want this bill. It is a virtual recruitment center blockade. The Army Public Affairs office estimated the military spends $50,000 - $64,000 training our enlisted. First tour veterans would receive the same benefits as re-deployed soldiers get. Three years of duty is enough for the benefits to start. This upgraded benefits entice the trained soldier to leave active duty, estimated at 16% loss. This bill guarantees we will deplete our noncommissioned officers, which John McCain feels would hurt the military and our country very badly. This bill is projected to cost the military an addition $2.8- $4 billion per month, not including new recruitment services. Adds to troop readiness decline in a time of war. It will be paid for in taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year, for ten years. If crafted without political intention, a satisfactory bill that all could agree on would have emerged. Democrats want Americans to believe if you don't support the upgraded GI Bill, you are not supporting the U.S. troops.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks as "America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref>

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his maintain their faith in Christianity. <ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-06-07T22:18:52Z

Xyrophile: /* Double Standard */ False tautology

{{protect|DanH}}

== Uneditable?? ==
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.

:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Evidence --> Support ==
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Arguments ==

"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is? I thought the scientific community was against it. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Behe==

Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== List is not needed given category ==

Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== I just came from wiki ==

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fascinating... ==
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Needed Entry ==
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

==A new year of encyclopedia building==

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Cdesign proponentsists==

I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Implications==

It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==The International Society for Science and Religion==
<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>
Just thought I should mention this.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled==
Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Expelled] [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sure: how about a 'see also' link at the end? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

== Double Standard ==

The page on [[evolution]] (falsely) criticizes evolution for being unfalsifiable, yet bands over backwards to allow Bacon's inductive reasoning as a legitimate line of demarcation. While I (and mainstream scholars of the philosophy of science) reject Popper's narrow view of falsifiability as the demarcation between science and conjecture, it seems anything but trustworthy to hold both models to differing standards. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 13:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please write something about falsifiability as it applies to evolution and ID. What sorts of things might occur (or be observed) that could possibly disprove evolution, for example?

:I recall Johnson or someone writing that ID could be falsified by proving evolution, by the way. So could you contribute a bit to [[Evidence for evolution]] or [[Proof of evolution]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:48, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've written plenty about the [[falsifiability of evolution]] on the relevant page. Intelligent design as a theory is not falsifiable because it's built on a negation; the theory essentially states that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed. However, the fact that we do not currently understand how an organism evolved does not preclude us from figuring it out in the future, so lack of understanding = evidence of design is a false tautology. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 18:18, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2008-06-07T21:22:12Z

Xyrophile: /* Mistake */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::The opposite of communism would be a state where a social class of workers do not own the means of production. Hence the opposite is capitalism. Don't confuse your personal ideology and definition of communism with that agreed upon by political scientists, philosophers, economists and the rest of people who've actually made significant study of what communism is and means. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

"Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena."

:*This is false. The concept of communism dates back to at least the 6th century BC. Marxism is a political philosophy which seeks to implement communism. Marxism is based on Marx's theory of historical materialism, a materialist conception of history based on the analsys of labour and production.

"Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the public owns the "means of production"."

:*This is true.

"In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat"."

:*This is riddled with errors, No country has had communism imposed upon it. Some countries have sought to implement communism, but invariably have become dictatorships with socialist economies. Dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT communism, and not synonymous with the nationalization of private enterprises.

{{QuoteBox|For Marx, the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Marx used the expression very infrequently and when he did employ it, he appeared to understand the word ‘dictatorship’ as meaning a concentration of power or forces rather than as a repressive situation. A different model of transition is offered in The Civil War in France (1871) based upon the experience of the Paris Commune. It stressed the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The ‘commune’ and ‘dictatorship’ models coexist uneasily in Marx's work.

:-from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics}}

This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.

:*This might be supported if a communist country actually existed, but none has existed to date . In theory, the nationalization and merger of enterprises would increase inefficiency by eliminating redundancy. With an even distribution of wealth, shortages only occur if the total production of the nation falls.

"In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls."

:*This is true, but not related to communist theory, which is what this section is actually about.

"Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see queuing)."

:*This has been true in some countries ruled by communist parties, but not all, and stands contrary to the aims and theory of communism.

"Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, and its modifications under Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any government."

:*This is true, although the use of supposedly here seems like a callous attempt to undermine the point.

"The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion."

:* This is mostly true, although you may wish to do some reading on the USSR's relationship with the orthodox church, as its considerably more nuanced than this phrase might indicate. However, this, once again, has nothing to do with communist theory.

"Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion."

:* Got any sources to support that?

"Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable Animal Farm."

:* It's not just left-wing critics. The very constitution of the USSR states that it is a socialist country, not a communist one.

"Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no incentive within the economic theory."

:* In the countries you describe as "communist," there is variation between wages of workers commensurate with ability. In a true communist society, there's no actual need for wages or money at all. This being said, you've limited yourself to the assumption that the personal accumulation of wealth is the only possible incentive in an economy.

"Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft."

:* I take it you did not actually read the quote from Marx.

{{QuoteBox|When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.}}

::Nothing is taken away, it's a change in the way property is generated.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Canadian Dollar

2008-06-07T21:04:00Z

Xyrophile: Added information about dates

The '''Canadian Dollar''' is the official currency of [[Canada]].

In October 2007, the Canadian dollar became slightly more valuable than the [[United States of America|American]] [[dollar]] for the first time since 1976.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/loonie.html CBC News] In Depth: Loonie</ref> The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar is in part due to a decrease in the value of the American dollar, and in part because of strong economic performance.

The Canadian [[federal government]] has consistently run large, net [[surplus]]es of tax revenues over expenditures since 1998, and is paying down their [[national debt]] (currently still at 457 billion Canadian dollars). The value of the economy also grows because of their wealth of natural resources, including [[oil]] and [[mineral]]s. This appreciation of the dollar has caused difficulties for the manufacturing areas of the economy. The Canadian dollar has stayed relatively steady against the [[euro]] and other major currencies, while the US dollar has fallen.<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoce/2007/ec07_e.html 2007 Economic Statement]</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Canada]]
[[Category: Currency]]

Talk:Origin of Life

2008-06-07T20:53:08Z

Xyrophile: /* Rebuttals of problems */

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm

== Grammatical error ==

There are numerous instances in this article where "creationist" (singular) should be "creationists" (plural).

== Bootstrap problem ==

Why no mention thereof?

== Scientific American ==

*Scientific American isn't really a journal. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 15:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
**Fixed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:26, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Essay ==

This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

Would anyone mind if I reformat the links in the references section? And not to involve myself in any controversy, but while the article is well-sourced, the anti-naturalistic origin quotes do seem a little densely packed at the moment... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

==And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one==

And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one, and therefore belongs in the ''See Also'' section. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:Fixed, but could you try and keep your headings shorter? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, I was trying to use a similar style to attract the attention of Conservative [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Heh. There are some people whose examples you should follow, and some you should not! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rebuttals of problems ==

1. Chicken or the Egg problem regarding DNA and proteins: Numerous theories exist as to how either RNA or proteins could have first arisen, but more prosaically, the fact that we do not know exactly how this may have happened does not mean it did not happen. We don't know how gravity works either, but nobody's claiming it doesn't. Also, see #4

2. Complexity of the cell: The complexity of the cell has nothing to do with abiogenesis, as abiogenesis doesn't concern itself with the evolution of the cell, just the genesis of the most basic forms of life.

3. Catch 22 problem regarding oxygen and the early earth: Jason Dwarkin et al. discovered during experiments simulating conditions on early earth that surprising resulted in the formation of fluorescent bubbles capable of absorbing enough UV and converting it to visible light to protect organic molecules. [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/3/815]

4. Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis. Altman and Cech won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for proving that RNA could act as a biocatalyst (like an enzyme) and sequence itself without proteins, proving the RNA world hypothesis plausible. [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html]

5. Chirality problem: much like #1 there are a number of competing theories. Example: Toxvaerd [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=5C0DD80C6FEE2ACD15DF6A7DDB86B8CD.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=335346]

6. Polymerization problem: like #1 again, numerous theories. example: Oro and Stephen-Sherwood [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p805621h4774p6gt/]

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your answers basically amount to ''faith'' that the naturalistic view will one day find evidence to support your point of view. Yes, the fact that we don't know how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't, but the article doesn't put it that way. It merely refers to them as "problems", not "impossibilities". And there's a difference between trying to explain the mechanism of something that's been observed (gravity) and something that has not been observed and which people ''do'' claim never happened. That scientists sometimes find some tiny piece of the puzzle (such as RNA acting like an enzyme in very limited ways) does not mean that the puzzle has been solved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, my answers are to the effect that these particular examples are not considered ''problems'' by biologists at all, they're simply unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories that continue to be tested. As for the gravity example, well, we know that gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know that life originated (and the rough timescale) through observation of its effects, mainly fossils and living creatures. The precise method by which the origin of terrestrial occured is scientifically better understood than the precise method by which gravity occurs. And yes, there are people who [http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/gravity.html deny the existence of gravity]. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Communism

2008-06-07T20:39:29Z

Xyrophile: /* Apologists of communism */ There is NO state that has declared itself communist, only states that have claimed to be seeking communism. If you have a source that says otherwise, cite it!

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' refers to the proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. This concept dates back to the age of [[Plato]]<ref>[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/CLI_COM/COMMUNISM.html Communism] 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref> While the concept of communism dates back to antiquity, the word itself was dates to the [[industrial revolution]] and was popularized by the publication of [[The Communist Manifesto]] by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] in 1848.
However, no nation described as communist has ever been classless; what we commonly refer to as communist countries are countries run by a communist party such as the USSR, China, Cuba and Vietnam. No country has yet claimed to have achieved communism, and those that have attempted to implement it have been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena.

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the "[[means of production]]". In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls.

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Talk:Communism

2008-06-07T20:29:17Z

Xyrophile: /* Theory Section */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

"Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena."

:*This is false. The concept of communism dates back to at least the 6th century BC. Marxism is a political philosophy which seeks to implement communism. Marxism is based on Marx's theory of historical materialism, a materialist conception of history based on the analsys of labour and production.

"Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the public owns the "means of production"."

:*This is true.

"In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat"."

:*This is riddled with errors, No country has had communism imposed upon it. Some countries have sought to implement communism, but invariably have become dictatorships with socialist economies. Dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT communism, and not synonymous with the nationalization of private enterprises.

{{QuoteBox|For Marx, the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Marx used the expression very infrequently and when he did employ it, he appeared to understand the word ‘dictatorship’ as meaning a concentration of power or forces rather than as a repressive situation. A different model of transition is offered in The Civil War in France (1871) based upon the experience of the Paris Commune. It stressed the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The ‘commune’ and ‘dictatorship’ models coexist uneasily in Marx's work.

:-from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics}}

This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.

:*This might be supported if a communist country actually existed, but none has existed to date . In theory, the nationalization and merger of enterprises would increase inefficiency by eliminating redundancy. With an even distribution of wealth, shortages only occur if the total production of the nation falls.

"In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls."

:*This is true, but not related to communist theory, which is what this section is actually about.

"Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see queuing)."

:*This has been true in some countries ruled by communist parties, but not all, and stands contrary to the aims and theory of communism.

"Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, and its modifications under Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any government."

:*This is true, although the use of supposedly here seems like a callous attempt to undermine the point.

"The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion."

:* This is mostly true, although you may wish to do some reading on the USSR's relationship with the orthodox church, as its considerably more nuanced than this phrase might indicate. However, this, once again, has nothing to do with communist theory.

"Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion."

:* Got any sources to support that?

"Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable Animal Farm."

:* It's not just left-wing critics. The very constitution of the USSR states that it is a socialist country, not a communist one.

"Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no incentive within the economic theory."

:* In the countries you describe as "communist," there is variation between wages of workers commensurate with ability. In a true communist society, there's no actual need for wages or money at all. This being said, you've limited yourself to the assumption that the personal accumulation of wealth is the only possible incentive in an economy.

"Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft."

:* I take it you did not actually read the quote from Marx.

{{QuoteBox|When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.}}

::Nothing is taken away, it's a change in the way property is generated.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Communism

2008-06-07T18:54:45Z

Xyrophile: I've updated the facts in the opening paragraph, as it reflected an incomplete understanding of the history and definition of communism

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' refers to the proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. This concept dates back to the age of [[Plato]]<ref>[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/CLI_COM/COMMUNISM.html Communism] 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref> While the concept of communism dates back to antiquity, the word itself was dates to the [[industrial revolution]] and was popularized by the publication of [[The Communist Manifesto]] by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] in 1848.
However, no nation described as communist has ever been classless; what we commonly refer to as communist countries are countries run by a communist party such as the USSR, China, Cuba and Vietnam. No country has yet claimed to have achieved communism, and those that have attempted to implement it have been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena.

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the "[[means of production]]". In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls.

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Talk:Communism

2008-06-07T16:29:41Z

Xyrophile: /* Theory Section */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T15:53:15Z

Xyrophile: /* Evolution and falsifiability */ see talk page

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although this does not disprove evolution unless all possible evolutionary explanations for their development have been ruled out. This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreducible complexity.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in{{fact}}. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view {{fact}}. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

While creationists argue that over 200 out of place fossils have been discovered,<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Anomalously Occurring Fossils]</ref> this represents a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions<ref>[http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods] Michael Benton</ref> that have been discovered. Mechanisms that could also account for this tiny fraction of anomalous fossils include:<ref>[http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/anomalous.html Anomalous Dates]</ref>
:* Younger material could have fallen into a crevice in older rock.
:* Human interference (particularly with respect to burial sites).
:* Fraud
:* Misidentification of the fossil
:* An incorrect assumption of the organism's era on earth.
:* Procedural errors such as usage of an inapplicable dating method or a poorly written report.
:* An inaccurate dating method

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating. This would disprove evolution wholesale, both within species and between them.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T15:46:17Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T15:45:34Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". The Bible is similarly comprised of a collection of books which are a collection of verses.

A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. Unlike the Bible, evolutionary theory does not claim to be Inerrant. An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on. And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''
:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories? Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell? Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection? If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it. But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean: what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven? How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails. Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection. They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent.
::::According to Steven J Gould: "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." - "Evolution as Fact and Theory", May 1981.
::::http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary.biology
::::http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/ [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::But my friend, that wasn't the question:). I know there are arguments out there in favor of universal common ancestry. There are also arguments against it. But is the proposition ''falsifiable''? What experiment could be performed to prove it ''wrong?'' That's the issue here. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions. There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell. Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion." But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism. When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation. For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood." A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion. And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen." The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science. Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations. The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared. The earth revolves relative to the sun. The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels. There's no doubt. There's no interpretation. The answers are right up there for us to see and test. ''That's'' what falsifiable science is. The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited. Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism." They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof." But there are two problems with this. First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection." Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''' What do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::What is the force of gravity on the mars? How do you know?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::Approx .38G at the equator. I know because if the gravity calcs were off, the spacecraft orbiting and landing on it would not have been successful. Also readings from Mars Global Surveyor. Those readings are testable. That's falsifiable science. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10-3G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''. From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:

The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.

The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.

When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.

Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.

Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.

Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. Why? Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is impossible, because someone can always say "Maybe we just don't know how yet!" I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Religion bending to science ===

Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]

Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:

"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."

The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.

As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.

We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.

The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.
: As for the rest of your post...
: "''...religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice.''": On the contrary, natural selection was first described by a creationist. So there's been no "concession" there.
: "''...scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims.''": I'd love to know what you are talking about here. Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''. And I know of nothing since that fits your description. The only things that "science" has "discovered" that ''some'' religious groups have conceded to are things like evolution, which is not a ''discovery'' but a ''explanation'' of how we came to be.
: "''In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society ...''": Biblical Christianity is not "evolving". It stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.
: "''...it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society''": The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview. The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.
: "''Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.''": Yet there was very little of that going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

For the sake of argument, assume that all the theories contained by evolution are false. What now? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.

:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.

:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is science? ==

Falsifiablity is only one criteria for scientific discovery.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/science.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/whatissci.cfm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0025.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557105

[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
: Falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for a particular proposition to be scientific. The point of this article is that the controversial aspects of evolution are not falsifiable. The fact that aspects of creationism are also not falsifiable (which is not in dispute) does not change the fact that ''evolution'' is not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Edit summary ==

Rewrote definition of falsifiability as the corrent definition is incorrect; falsifiability is NOT a complete test of the scientific validity of a concept in and of itself, and not strictly necessary for a proposition to be considered scientific except in the philosophy of science of certain non-bayensians.

Updated definitions of evolution to reflect current trends in biological research.

Elaborated on possible tests of evolution

Provided context for quotes from evolutionists.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I like some of your wording changes, but other of your changes are more problematic. For example, you say "''However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept ...''", as though the previous paragraph said that natural selection ''was'' the sole factor. But it didn't. It said "''if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended ... '''by variation and''' natural selection alone''" (my emphasis). So your "rebuttal" of the previous paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. And it merely points out that ''particular models'' of evolution make some testable predictions, ignoring that the whole point is that evolution is so flexible that ''evolution itself'' is not thereby challenged, just the particular models.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I'll try to address your concerns as best I can here:

I think a great deal of the problem is a lack of distinction between three concepts: evolution, natural selection and common origin. While all three support each other, they're separate concepts that are all being lumped together and referred to as evolution.

The Merriam Webster's applicable definition of evolution is as follows (the other definitions are unrelated to biology):

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Essentially, this is in line with the first definition of evolution, and essentially regarded as fact by most scientists.

Natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which evolution may occur. I'm pretty sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't bother detailing it, but the important distinction is that disproving natural selection does not mean disproving evolution. The other important point on natural selection is that modern evolutionary theory has itself evolved and only considers natural selection one of many forces driving evolution. For instance, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer revealed that DNA can actually be exchanged between different organisms coming into contact with each other. There are a host of factors at play beyond natural selection and variation by mutation, so this aspect of the definition is somewhat misleading.

The theory of common descent of course is the theory that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, which is the point the second definition speaks to. It's important to realize that this is not the same thing as the most primitive form of life or the first living organism. In fact, research supports the theory that our common ancestor was not a "protocell" or even a single celled being, but a primitive multicellular organism: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854]
However, common descent is not necessary for evolution to hold, and the opposite is true as well; it's hypothetically possible for the descendants of a single ancestor to be wildly different for reasons unrelated to evolution. After all, if you're a creationist, you must believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Transformationism is the idea that organisms can evolve, but have evolved from multiple ancestors instead of a common one.

* The test of falsifiability is simply whether a theory could POTENTIALLY be falsified based on a test of its predictions. If it IS falsified, the next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies. Theories are not static, unchanging things, but working models that are adjusted to account for observation. That being said, the argument about wheels and magnets is essentially an older version of the doctrine of intelligent design; namely that the discovery of biological structures with no possible evolutionary path would invalidate evolution. The discovery of wheels and magnets in nature has nothing to do with evolution unless we're talking about wheels and magnets in biological structures, and even then, only if no reason could be found that a less evolved structure could be advantageous. The existence of wheels and magnets alone, even in a biological structure would NOT be a test of evolution. Unfortunately the current treatment of Haldane's quote lacks the context to make this distinction.

* All the proposed tests are logically possible, but not necessarily logistically. This isn't a strike against the theory though because falsifiability only requires that the theory be CAPABLE of being tested, not necessarily testable with our current technology. Testing the theory of relativity requires either the technology to accelerate matter to fantastic speeds and incredibly accurate clocks. Had we not invented particle accelerators or atomic clocks, it's likely we still would not have tested Einstein's theories. That being said, the lack of this technology would not have affected the falsifiability of relativity. Testable predictions do NOT need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. The example of gravity in this article is a perfect example of this. The theory of gravitation predicts the rate at which an apple will fall from a tree (possibly injuring any physicists sitting beneath it) and because this can be tested the theory is falsifiable. However, it does not rule out the possibility that said apple falls to the ground for reason other than gravity. The discovery that mutations can't accumulate is actually would falsify evolution wholesale, and so it's a legitimate test, just as testing whether apples don't fall. The fact that the results of the test do not falsify the theory is irrelevant. If the question is whether the overarching theory of evolution can potentially be falsified, testing whether mutations can accumulate within a species is a valid test, not just hand waving.

* The platypus is a monotreme like the echidnas (which also lay eggs.) While its bill superficially resembles that of a bird, it's actually an elongated pliable snout with covered in sensitive skin. Its spines are poisonous, but the venom is chemically unlike that of snakes and reptiles, or any other animal for that matter. A true chimera would incorporate elements that were structurally, not just superficially, identical. Similarity is not enough to qualify as a chimera, and not all chimeras would falsify evolution. The lineage of monotremes diverges from that of other mammals from a point far in prehistory when mammals first began to evolve from reptiles, explaining why they share characteristics with them (i.e. laying eggs.) The discovery of a chimera composed of elements from organisms whose phylogeny is widely divergent would thereby disprove evolution.

* Direct observation: If we observed new organisms being created that did not inherit characteristics of their progenitors, clearly evolution would be disproven.

* Dissimilar DNA: if an organism was shown to be less similar to a phylogenetically close organism than a phylogenetically distant one, evolution would be disproved. Example: if humans were found to be more similar genetically to chickens than apes.

If you read Whitten's quote carefully, you'll not he speaks about challenging "the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution" and not about evolution per se. The article is about the institutional bias against challenging established viewpoints. In his original quote, you note that he states "they may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions." If it's even possible to test these predictions, clearly evolution is falsifiable! [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that ''everything'' (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you ''still'' haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be ''able'' to falsify it.
: As for "research" supporting a theory of a multicellular organism, the paper you linked to seems to be very short on actual research! Rather, it is wild imagination, a just-so story.
: The wheels and magnets ''are'' in biological structures. The rest of that paragraph of yours basically tried to explain away the fact that a proposed falsification of evolution ''was'' put to the test, evolution failed, but evolution was not thereby falsified! So if falsification tests manage to falsify, but the theory stands anyway, why should we believe that any ''other'' proposed falsifications would actually have the potential to falsify evolution? I've had several people put to me that finding dinosaur fossils in recent strata would falsify it, but I have absolutely no doubt that if such were found (and something equivalent ''has'' been found), evolution would not be falsified, because it would be quite easy to simply say that they didn't die out 65 million years ago after all, without discarding evolution itself.
: You make an interesting point about the difference between logically-possible and logistically-possible falsifications. I'm not disagreeing, but wonder where that leads. Does that mean that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is falsifiable because, logically though not logistically, we could one day invent a time machine and go back and observe it happening (or not happening)? Or does the falsifiability of creation depend on current thinking about the theoretical possibility of time travel (which has wavered between it not being possible to it being theoretically possible)?
: I understand what you are getting at with potential falsifiability and accumulation of mutations, but let me put an absurd example to you so that I can see how you explain it. Creation (the alternative to evolution that so many say is unscientific because it's not falsifiable) predicts that we exist. Because we can test if we exist, creation is therefore falsifiable. I could probably think of a slightly less absurd example, but hopefully that makes the point.
: I understand why the platypus is not a true chimera, but the point of the chimera example is that evolution supposedly cannot explain it. Neither can it adequately explain many other similarities not due to common descent, but evolution is not thereby falsified, because someone can always invent ''some'' explanation, no matter how fanciful. Also, the chimera example says "chimeras ... unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis". Is such a thing ''possible''? That is, is it ''possible'' to have chimeras ''unable to be explained'' in an evolutionary context? I doubt it, and that's part of the example being contrived. If they occurred, evolutionists would come up with ''some'' explanation. That's the point: it's so flexible it can explain ''anything''. So the argument amounts to saying, "Evolution would be falsified if there something was discovered that couldn't be explained by evolution". Duh!
: Your "explanation" of the direct observation of creation does not explain why evolution would be falsified.
: And the dissimilar DNA argument is just as silly. It basically says that if two organisms were found to be more similar than expected according to the evolutionary family tree (i.e. common descent), then evolution would be wrong. But this has been found numerous times. All that happens is that the family tree is rearranged (you said yourself that the "next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies") rather than evolution being discarded.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::"(although many evolutionists conflate the two)," - not to mention many creationists. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Amateur creationists, perhaps, but not the leading ones such as those with Creation Ministries International, the Institution for Creation Research, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: So do you assert that the leading evolutionists make this mistake as well? If so, do you care to name a few examples? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Essentially, yes. I can't recall any particular ones at the moment, other than what's mentioned in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ this article] (search for "As does CMI", and read that and the next paragraph). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that everything (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you still haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be able to falsify it.

-
The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable! If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution. This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them. That being said, this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future. It's an argument fundamentally based on ignorance, and it's part of the reason ID is so derided.

The arguments about strata are weak too, because there are a host of processes that could account for the distribution of anomalous fossils, one of which is a simple misunderstanding of when species went extinct.

6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable; the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this. The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.

Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution, an organism would have to incorporate elements of multiple organisms that are widely separated phylogenetically. This means completely identical; it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations. It would falsify evolution to come across a centaur and discover its genome was composed of sections of human DNA and horse DNA, because both evolutionary lines diverged. However, finding a centaur with a unique genome would not falsify evolution.

Evolutionary would be falsified in my example of direct evolution because evolution predicts that organisms inherit characteristics or their progenitors. If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation) Essentially, the argument is that if direct observation contradicted evolution's model of heredity (currently the mendellian genetic model) evolution would be disproven.

The phylogenetic tree predates evolutionary theory actually. It's primarily based on morphology (observation of similar characteristics.) The reason that it's important to evolutionary theory is that evolution predicts this sort of heirarchy, predicts that it's because of common descent, and predicts that the distance on this tree will be reflected on the genetic tree of life. While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy. However, testing the genetic distance between organisms we are reasonably certain are correctly classified and comparing it to the phylogenetic distance allows us to test evolution's prediction that genetics will reflect phylogeny.

While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T15:44:51Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". The Bible is similarly comprised of a collection of books which are a collection of verses.

A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. Unlike the Bible, evolutionary theory does not claim to be Inerrant. An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on. And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''
:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories? Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell? Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection? If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it. But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean: what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven? How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails. Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection. They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent.
::::According to Steven J Gould: "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." - "Evolution as Fact and Theory", May 1981.
::::http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary.biology
::::http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/ [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::But my friend, that wasn't the question:). I know there are arguments out there in favor of universal common ancestry. There are also arguments against it. But is the proposition ''falsifiable''? What experiment could be performed to prove it ''wrong?'' That's the issue here. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions. There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell. Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion." But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism. When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation. For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood." A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion. And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen." The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science. Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations. The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared. The earth revolves relative to the sun. The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels. There's no doubt. There's no interpretation. The answers are right up there for us to see and test. ''That's'' what falsifiable science is. The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited. Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism." They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof." But there are two problems with this. First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection." Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''' What do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::What is the force of gravity on the mars? How do you know?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::Approx .38G at the equator. I know because if the gravity calcs were off, the spacecraft orbiting and landing on it would not have been successful. Also readings from Mars Global Surveyor. Those readings are testable. That's falsifiable science. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10-3G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''. From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:

The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.

The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.

When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.

Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.

Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.

Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. Why? Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is impossible, because someone can always say "Maybe we just don't know how yet!" I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Religion bending to science ===

Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]

Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:

"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."

The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.

As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.

We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.

The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.
: As for the rest of your post...
: "''...religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice.''": On the contrary, natural selection was first described by a creationist. So there's been no "concession" there.
: "''...scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims.''": I'd love to know what you are talking about here. Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''. And I know of nothing since that fits your description. The only things that "science" has "discovered" that ''some'' religious groups have conceded to are things like evolution, which is not a ''discovery'' but a ''explanation'' of how we came to be.
: "''In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society ...''": Biblical Christianity is not "evolving". It stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.
: "''...it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society''": The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview. The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.
: "''Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.''": Yet there was very little of that going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

For the sake of argument, assume that all the theories contained by evolution are false. What now? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.

:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.

:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is science? ==

Falsifiablity is only one criteria for scientific discovery.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/science.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/whatissci.cfm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0025.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557105

[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
: Falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for a particular proposition to be scientific. The point of this article is that the controversial aspects of evolution are not falsifiable. The fact that aspects of creationism are also not falsifiable (which is not in dispute) does not change the fact that ''evolution'' is not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Edit summary ==

Rewrote definition of falsifiability as the corrent definition is incorrect; falsifiability is NOT a complete test of the scientific validity of a concept in and of itself, and not strictly necessary for a proposition to be considered scientific except in the philosophy of science of certain non-bayensians.

Updated definitions of evolution to reflect current trends in biological research.

Elaborated on possible tests of evolution

Provided context for quotes from evolutionists.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I like some of your wording changes, but other of your changes are more problematic. For example, you say "''However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept ...''", as though the previous paragraph said that natural selection ''was'' the sole factor. But it didn't. It said "''if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended ... '''by variation and''' natural selection alone''" (my emphasis). So your "rebuttal" of the previous paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. And it merely points out that ''particular models'' of evolution make some testable predictions, ignoring that the whole point is that evolution is so flexible that ''evolution itself'' is not thereby challenged, just the particular models.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I'll try to address your concerns as best I can here:

I think a great deal of the problem is a lack of distinction between three concepts: evolution, natural selection and common origin. While all three support each other, they're separate concepts that are all being lumped together and referred to as evolution.

The Merriam Webster's applicable definition of evolution is as follows (the other definitions are unrelated to biology):

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Essentially, this is in line with the first definition of evolution, and essentially regarded as fact by most scientists.

Natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which evolution may occur. I'm pretty sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't bother detailing it, but the important distinction is that disproving natural selection does not mean disproving evolution. The other important point on natural selection is that modern evolutionary theory has itself evolved and only considers natural selection one of many forces driving evolution. For instance, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer revealed that DNA can actually be exchanged between different organisms coming into contact with each other. There are a host of factors at play beyond natural selection and variation by mutation, so this aspect of the definition is somewhat misleading.

The theory of common descent of course is the theory that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, which is the point the second definition speaks to. It's important to realize that this is not the same thing as the most primitive form of life or the first living organism. In fact, research supports the theory that our common ancestor was not a "protocell" or even a single celled being, but a primitive multicellular organism: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854]
However, common descent is not necessary for evolution to hold, and the opposite is true as well; it's hypothetically possible for the descendants of a single ancestor to be wildly different for reasons unrelated to evolution. After all, if you're a creationist, you must believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Transformationism is the idea that organisms can evolve, but have evolved from multiple ancestors instead of a common one.

* The test of falsifiability is simply whether a theory could POTENTIALLY be falsified based on a test of its predictions. If it IS falsified, the next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies. Theories are not static, unchanging things, but working models that are adjusted to account for observation. That being said, the argument about wheels and magnets is essentially an older version of the doctrine of intelligent design; namely that the discovery of biological structures with no possible evolutionary path would invalidate evolution. The discovery of wheels and magnets in nature has nothing to do with evolution unless we're talking about wheels and magnets in biological structures, and even then, only if no reason could be found that a less evolved structure could be advantageous. The existence of wheels and magnets alone, even in a biological structure would NOT be a test of evolution. Unfortunately the current treatment of Haldane's quote lacks the context to make this distinction.

* All the proposed tests are logically possible, but not necessarily logistically. This isn't a strike against the theory though because falsifiability only requires that the theory be CAPABLE of being tested, not necessarily testable with our current technology. Testing the theory of relativity requires either the technology to accelerate matter to fantastic speeds and incredibly accurate clocks. Had we not invented particle accelerators or atomic clocks, it's likely we still would not have tested Einstein's theories. That being said, the lack of this technology would not have affected the falsifiability of relativity. Testable predictions do NOT need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. The example of gravity in this article is a perfect example of this. The theory of gravitation predicts the rate at which an apple will fall from a tree (possibly injuring any physicists sitting beneath it) and because this can be tested the theory is falsifiable. However, it does not rule out the possibility that said apple falls to the ground for reason other than gravity. The discovery that mutations can't accumulate is actually would falsify evolution wholesale, and so it's a legitimate test, just as testing whether apples don't fall. The fact that the results of the test do not falsify the theory is irrelevant. If the question is whether the overarching theory of evolution can potentially be falsified, testing whether mutations can accumulate within a species is a valid test, not just hand waving.

* The platypus is a monotreme like the echidnas (which also lay eggs.) While its bill superficially resembles that of a bird, it's actually an elongated pliable snout with covered in sensitive skin. Its spines are poisonous, but the venom is chemically unlike that of snakes and reptiles, or any other animal for that matter. A true chimera would incorporate elements that were structurally, not just superficially, identical. Similarity is not enough to qualify as a chimera, and not all chimeras would falsify evolution. The lineage of monotremes diverges from that of other mammals from a point far in prehistory when mammals first began to evolve from reptiles, explaining why they share characteristics with them (i.e. laying eggs.) The discovery of a chimera composed of elements from organisms whose phylogeny is widely divergent would thereby disprove evolution.

* Direct observation: If we observed new organisms being created that did not inherit characteristics of their progenitors, clearly evolution would be disproven.

* Dissimilar DNA: if an organism was shown to be less similar to a phylogenetically close organism than a phylogenetically distant one, evolution would be disproved. Example: if humans were found to be more similar genetically to chickens than apes.

If you read Whitten's quote carefully, you'll not he speaks about challenging "the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution" and not about evolution per se. The article is about the institutional bias against challenging established viewpoints. In his original quote, you note that he states "they may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions." If it's even possible to test these predictions, clearly evolution is falsifiable! [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that ''everything'' (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you ''still'' haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be ''able'' to falsify it.
: As for "research" supporting a theory of a multicellular organism, the paper you linked to seems to be very short on actual research! Rather, it is wild imagination, a just-so story.
: The wheels and magnets ''are'' in biological structures. The rest of that paragraph of yours basically tried to explain away the fact that a proposed falsification of evolution ''was'' put to the test, evolution failed, but evolution was not thereby falsified! So if falsification tests manage to falsify, but the theory stands anyway, why should we believe that any ''other'' proposed falsifications would actually have the potential to falsify evolution? I've had several people put to me that finding dinosaur fossils in recent strata would falsify it, but I have absolutely no doubt that if such were found (and something equivalent ''has'' been found), evolution would not be falsified, because it would be quite easy to simply say that they didn't die out 65 million years ago after all, without discarding evolution itself.
: You make an interesting point about the difference between logically-possible and logistically-possible falsifications. I'm not disagreeing, but wonder where that leads. Does that mean that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is falsifiable because, logically though not logistically, we could one day invent a time machine and go back and observe it happening (or not happening)? Or does the falsifiability of creation depend on current thinking about the theoretical possibility of time travel (which has wavered between it not being possible to it being theoretically possible)?
: I understand what you are getting at with potential falsifiability and accumulation of mutations, but let me put an absurd example to you so that I can see how you explain it. Creation (the alternative to evolution that so many say is unscientific because it's not falsifiable) predicts that we exist. Because we can test if we exist, creation is therefore falsifiable. I could probably think of a slightly less absurd example, but hopefully that makes the point.
: I understand why the platypus is not a true chimera, but the point of the chimera example is that evolution supposedly cannot explain it. Neither can it adequately explain many other similarities not due to common descent, but evolution is not thereby falsified, because someone can always invent ''some'' explanation, no matter how fanciful. Also, the chimera example says "chimeras ... unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis". Is such a thing ''possible''? That is, is it ''possible'' to have chimeras ''unable to be explained'' in an evolutionary context? I doubt it, and that's part of the example being contrived. If they occurred, evolutionists would come up with ''some'' explanation. That's the point: it's so flexible it can explain ''anything''. So the argument amounts to saying, "Evolution would be falsified if there something was discovered that couldn't be explained by evolution". Duh!
: Your "explanation" of the direct observation of creation does not explain why evolution would be falsified.
: And the dissimilar DNA argument is just as silly. It basically says that if two organisms were found to be more similar than expected according to the evolutionary family tree (i.e. common descent), then evolution would be wrong. But this has been found numerous times. All that happens is that the family tree is rearranged (you said yourself that the "next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies") rather than evolution being discarded.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::"(although many evolutionists conflate the two)," - not to mention many creationists. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Amateur creationists, perhaps, but not the leading ones such as those with Creation Ministries International, the Institution for Creation Research, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: So do you assert that the leading evolutionists make this mistake as well? If so, do you care to name a few examples? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Essentially, yes. I can't recall any particular ones at the moment, other than what's mentioned in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ this article] (search for "As does CMI", and read that and the next paragraph). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that everything (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you still haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be able to falsify it.

The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable! If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution. This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them. That being said, this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future. It's an argument fundamentally based on ignorance, and it's part of the reason ID is so derided.

The arguments about strata are weak too, because there are a host of processes that could account for the distribution of anomalous fossils, one of which is a simple misunderstanding of when species went extinct.

6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable; the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this. The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.

Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution, an organism would have to incorporate elements of multiple organisms that are widely separated phylogenetically. This means completely identical; it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations. It would falsify evolution to come across a centaur and discover its genome was composed of sections of human DNA and horse DNA, because both evolutionary lines diverged. However, finding a centaur with a unique genome would not falsify evolution.

Evolutionary would be falsified in my example of direct evolution because evolution predicts that organisms inherit characteristics or their progenitors. If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation) Essentially, the argument is that if direct observation contradicted evolution's model of heredity (currently the mendellian genetic model) evolution would be disproven.

The phylogenetic tree predates evolutionary theory actually. It's primarily based on morphology (observation of similar characteristics.) The reason that it's important to evolutionary theory is that evolution predicts this sort of heirarchy, predicts that it's because of common descent, and predicts that the distance on this tree will be reflected on the genetic tree of life. While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy. However, testing the genetic distance between organisms we are reasonably certain are correctly classified and comparing it to the phylogenetic distance allows us to test evolution's prediction that genetics will reflect phylogeny.

While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T14:32:34Z

Xyrophile: /* Falsifiability */ Added observation to definition of falsifiability; "by experiment or observation" could also be replaced with "by empirical evidence"

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature. This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreductible complexity.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Evolutionists typically have responded by describing hypothetical mechanisms for the evolution of the discussed theory. (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation). Therefore, some creationists have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable. Ironically, this same process renders irreducible complexity unfalsifiable as well.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place", and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in{{fact}}. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view {{fact}}. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications of evolution include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating
: However, we already know that mutations accumulate, and this proposed falsification fails to distinguish between evolution and competing views such as creation, so is rather pointless as a falsification.
* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
: However, we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.
* Direct observation of organisms being created.
: However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Falsifiable

2008-06-07T14:30:32Z

Xyrophile: New page: I've changed the definition, as the previous one was not accurate. A theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible to refute it by test or observation ~~~~

I've changed the definition, as the previous one was not accurate. A theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible to refute it by test or observation [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Falsifiable

2008-06-07T14:29:18Z

Xyrophile:

A proposition or theory is '''falsifiable''' if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false, regardless of the accuracy of the proposition.<ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-falsifiability.html Definition] A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman, via encyclopedia.com</ref>. A proposal or theory that can never be shown to be false is not falsifiable.

For example, the suggestion that I would be a very happy if I were ten years younger is not falsifiable, because it is impossible to test the hypothesis by making myself ten years younger and seeing how I feel.

Falsifiability is commonly used as a criterion for whether a particular proposition is "scientific." Philosopher [[Karl Popper]] popularized this criterion, arguing that science progresses through the process of "Observation, speculation, falsification;" That is, we observe the universe, we develop a speculative hypothesis about the universe, and we test our hypothesis. If our hypothesis is proven false, we discard it. If our hypothesis is not proven false, we can consider it provisionally true. According to Popper, there is no such thing as ''scientific certainty;'' on the contrary, all our beliefs are properly held ''provisionally,'' and always subject to the possibility that they will someday be disproven by experiment.

Popper, and those who agree with him, categorize many types of ideas as unfalsifiable, particularly in psychology and religion. For example, the proposition "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was ''not'' beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children. Because the proposition is not testable, according to falsificationism, it is no better than any other hypothesis, and therefore not useful, and not scientific.

==Carl Sagan==

In his book, ''Demon-Haunted World'' [[Carl Sagan]], a noted [[astronomer]], gives an example of a statement with this sort of premise saying: "There is a dragon in my garage." In order for one to prove or disprove the statement they are allowed to ask questions.

*''Q. Can I see the dragon?''
*A. No, the dragon is invisible.

*''Q. Can I touch the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is incorporeal.

*''Q. Can I hear the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is silent.

and so on...

In this way, every question can be answered and therefore the existence of the dragon is unfalsifiable. However, in the absence of physical or other evidence of its existence, whether the dragon actually exists or not is a matter of faith.

== G.K. Chesterton ==
[[G.K. Chesterton]], a Christian [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] of the early 20th century, articulated the problem of falsifiability several years before Popper. He wrote:<ref>G.K. Chesterton, ''Everlasting Man'', II.</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.}}

== See also ==
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[Deduction]]
*[[Induction]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:philosophy]]
== Reference ==
<references />

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T14:18:59Z

Xyrophile:

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature. This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreductible complexity.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Evolutionists typically have responded by describing hypothetical mechanisms for the evolution of the discussed theory. (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation). Therefore, some creationists have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable. Ironically, this same process renders irreducible complexity unfalsifiable as well.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place", and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in{{fact}}. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view {{fact}}. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Other proposed falsifications of evolution include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating
: However, we already know that mutations accumulate, and this proposed falsification fails to distinguish between evolution and competing views such as creation, so is rather pointless as a falsification.
* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
: However, we already have numerous examples of similar features in creatures that can't be explained by common ancestry, yet these examples, called "[[convergent evolution]]", have not falsified evolution.
* Direct observation of organisms being created.
: However, discovering a being capable of creating organsims would not preclude the possibility of evolution also being true.

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-07T12:56:49Z

Xyrophile: /* Edit summary */

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-05T21:21:17Z

Xyrophile: Edit summary

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-06-05T21:15:16Z

Xyrophile: See comments section

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment. This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false.

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Without a way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), the hypothesis can not rise above conjecture.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not scientifically valid.

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept since the synthesis of [[Mendelian genetics]], and current models of evolution incorporate natural selection as well as [[genetic drift]], [[horizontal gene transfer]], [[mutation]], [[adaptation]] and [[gene flow]]. Biologists contend that this modern model of evolution predicts distinctive genetic markers and structures that can be tested with modern genome sequencing techniques.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature. This concept is identical in basic concept to the proposed mechanism of irreductible complexity.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Evolutionists typically have responded by describing hypothetical mechanisms for the evolution of the discussed theory. (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation). Therefore, some creationists have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable. Ironically, this same process renders irreducible complexity unfalsifiable as well.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place", and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in{{fact}}. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view {{fact}}. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

Evolution could also be falsified by
* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating
* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis.
* Direct observation of organisms being created.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html Claim CA211]</ref>
* Dissimilar DNA among organisms of common descent. The assertion that humans and apes spring from a common ancestor would be disproved if DNA among humans and apes was found to be significantly dissimilar.

If any of these tests are falsifiable, logically the theory of evolution is falsifiable as well.

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper remained convinced of evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory:<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>
{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.}}

Popper later reevaluated this view. In "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref>, this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later reinfoced this statement in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980 </ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Birch and Ehrlich have been characterised as considering evolution to be unfalsifiable, but this is incorrect. In ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Metaphysics

2008-06-05T18:19:21Z

Xyrophile: Cleaned up definition, language, citations

'''Metaphysics''' is the branch of [[philosophy]] concerned with the fundamental nature of reality. <ref>[http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N095 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref> It draws its name from from the [[Greek]] meta ta phusika, meaning literally 'beyond physics', because the book comes after the [[Physics (Aristotle)| Physics]] in the order assigned by an editor of Aristotle's works, [[Andronicus of Rhodes]], about the year A.D. 70. The term metaphysics was unknown to Aristotle, and he variously called this branch of philosophy "first science", "wisdom" [[Theology | theological science]]" (theologikê) and "first philosophy" (prôtê philosophia)<ref><ref>[http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/metaphysics/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>

In common usage, Metaphysics can also refer to philosophical speculation of any kind, even when not strictly philosophical, such as [[mysticism]] or [[New Age]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Materialism

2008-06-05T18:07:08Z

Xyrophile: Edited definition as materialism does not posit that things do not exist, it simply argues that they are effects of matter and added cite requests

'''Materialism''' is a [[philosophy]] within the realm of [[metaphysics]] that holds that the only thing that can be proven beyond doubt to exist is matter. Materialism holds that all phenomena and processes can be explained as manefestations or results of matter.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism Merriam Webster Dictionary: Materialism]</ref>

In politics, materialism overlooks abstract principles and instead focuses on tangible or directly observable characteristics, {{fact}} such as:

* race
* gender
* wealth
* location<ref>For example, some question whether [[John McCain]] can become President of the [[United States]] because the ''location'' of his birth was outside of the [[United States]]. [http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/02/is-mccain-a-nat.html]</ref>

In the [[United States]], [[Democrats]] tend to be materalistic, with particularly heavy emphasis placed on race and gender.{{fact}} [[Republicans]], in contrast, tend to focus on principles such as [[pro-life]] or [[economics]].{{fact}}

Materialism ignores unseen [[opportunity costs]], and often materialists fail to grasp the concept and its importance. {{fact}}

[[Gun control]] is an issue that separates materialistic approaches from conceptual ones. The materialistic duality is to remove guns ostensibly to reduce violence from guns or allow guns to allow individuals to defend themselves. The conceptual approach is to evaluate the unseen deterrent benefits of guns, and to compare this value to the harm of improper use.

Materialism is taught heavily in [[public schools]], leading students to undervalue [[unseen]] aspects of life. {{fact}} There is a high correlation between materialism and [[atheism]] as atheism is fundamentally a materialistic philosophy. Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of [[faith]] in the [[unseen]]. {{fact}}

Materialism misleads people into thinking that non-material-based addictions (e.g., gambling and pornography) are not harmful to one's health. {{fact}} They are often very harmful despite a lack of immediate physical harm.

Arguments for materialism commonly misuse {{fact}} principles such as [[Occam's Razor]] and propose that an immaterial realm is wholly superfluous to materialists' understanding of the world.

"Materialism" can also refer to an obsession with material goods.

The teachings of [[Karl Marx]] and [[Vladimir Lenin]] (see [[Marxism-Leninism]]) rest upon a philosophy of history called [[dialectical materialism]].

==Quotes==

*"[T]he greatest failure of materialism is that it simply cannot explain the existence of [[information]]!" [http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm]

== See also ==

* [[Philosophy]]
* [[Unseen]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-06-05T17:40:20Z

Xyrophile: Double Standard

Canadian Dollar

2008-06-05T15:47:48Z

Xyrophile: Removed conservative gov't/supply side explaination as the dollar's value has climed consistently since 2001

The '''Canadian Dollar''' is the official currency of Canada. In October 2007, the Canadian dollar became slightly more valuable than the [[United States of America|American]] [[dollar]] for the first time since the 1960s.

The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar is in part due to a decrease in the value of the American dollar, and in part because of strong economic performance. The Canadian [[federal government]] has consistently run large, net [[surplus]]es of tax revenues over expenditures, and is paying down their [[national debt]] (currently still at 457 billion Canadian dollars). The value of the economy also grows because of their wealth of natural resources, including [[oil]] and [[mineral]]s. This appreciation of the dollar has caused difficulties for the manufacturing areas of the economy. The Canadian dollar has stayed relatively steady against the [[euro]] and other major currencies, while the US dollar has fallen.<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoce/2007/ec07_e.html 2007 Economic Statement]</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Canada]]
[[Category: Economics]]

Stephen C. Meyer

2008-06-05T15:38:59Z

Xyrophile: /* Peer Review Controversy */

'''Stephen C. Meyer''' is an American philosopher of science. Stephen C. Meyer is also director and Senior Fellow of the [[Center for Science and Culture]] at the [[Discovery Institute]]. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=11</ref>

Meyer earned his doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Science from [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge University]] for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. In addition, Dr. Meyer worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in geology and Physics. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=11</ref> Before taking his current position at the Discovery Insitute, he was an associate professor of philosophy at Whitworth College in [[Washington]].

Meyer is a major proponent of [[Intelligent Design]] theory.

In an interview with [[Ben Wattenberg]], Dr. Meyer said,

{{quotebox|Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/v/22</ref>}}

== Peer Review Controversy ==

In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, making it the first article in support of intelligent design to be published in a peer reviewed journal. <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref>
Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article as it had not met its scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. <ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON]</ref> The statement also endorsed American Association for the Advancement of Science's resolution that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.

== References ==

<References/>

== External Links ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Stephen%20C.%20Meyer&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true Articles by Stephen C. Meyer]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Meyer, Stephen C.}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]

Stephen C. Meyer

2008-06-05T15:38:49Z

Xyrophile: Added information about the controversy about Meyer's submission to the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

Talk:Origin of Life

2008-06-05T15:22:52Z

Xyrophile: /* Rebuttals of problems */

Talk:Origin of Life

2008-06-05T15:22:29Z

Xyrophile: Rebuttals of problems

Communism

2008-06-05T13:37:23Z

Xyrophile: /* Apologists of communism */ Removed this section wholesale; there's a major logical fallacy here: proclaiming your country communist doesn't make it so any more than declaring yourself capitalist

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no society described as communist has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]

Communism describes a classless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. Like most political systems, there is significant debate among its proponents about how exactly this should take place, and several different streams of communist theory have been developed. The most common variants derive from Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], in [[The Communist Manifesto]] which asserts that the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production (or in layman's terms, the working class) is inevitable. The political philosophies of [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]] are are derived from Marxism. Other schools of communist thought apart from Marxism also exist such as [[Anarcho-communism]] and [[Christian Communism]] which draws its inspiration from scripture, particularly Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2:
'''42''' And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship '''44''' And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; '''45''' And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The nation most commonly thought of as "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991, although constitutionally, the USSR was a socialist federation seeking to build communism in the future<ref>[http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html Constitution of the Soviet Union]</ref> and in practice took the form of totalitarianism. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. Many occasions have developed in countries commonly described as "communist," particularly the USSR where members of the ruling party have access to special stores to which which ordinary people have been barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). However, this is antithetical to the actual theory of communism which seeks to abolish class divisions and give control of the state directly to the citizens.

Marxist theory is often summed up with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In Marxist theory, the collective good is valued at a level above the [[incentive]] of personal gain. While this is often is interpreted by critics to mean that wages are fixed regardless of the work performed, in practice this is not the case. For instance, the USSR experimented with many different wage systems. <ref>[[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1822695 Russian Wage Systems under Communism]] Amy Hewes, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1922), pp. 274-278</ref> In the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx and Engels state "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." While some have characterized this as legalized theft, the text of the Communist Manifesto itself reveals that this is not a reference to personal possessions, but in the context of Marx's conception of property as [[captial]] refers to a gradual systematic shift in the way property is generated, as Marx felt that capital was generated by the unfair exploitation of workers. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." <ref>[http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The Communist Manifesto]</ref>

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Christian Communism==

Some variants of Communist thought draw their ideology from scripture, in the same manner as the protestant [[Social Gospel]] movement which sought to apply Christian ethics to social problems. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Christian Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

Unlike Marxists, who view Communism as an inevitable product of history, Christian Communists believe that Communism is compelled upon Christians by the teachings of Jesus Christ and by the love of God.

"The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death."<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2008-06-05T13:29:27Z

Xyrophile: /* Christian Communists */

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no society described as communist has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]

Communism describes a classless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. Like most political systems, there is significant debate among its proponents about how exactly this should take place, and several different streams of communist theory have been developed. The most common variants derive from Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], in [[The Communist Manifesto]] which asserts that the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production (or in layman's terms, the working class) is inevitable. The political philosophies of [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]] are are derived from Marxism. Other schools of communist thought apart from Marxism also exist such as [[Anarcho-communism]] and [[Christian Communism]] which draws its inspiration from scripture, particularly Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2:
'''42''' And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship '''44''' And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; '''45''' And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The nation most commonly thought of as "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991, although constitutionally, the USSR was a socialist federation seeking to build communism in the future<ref>[http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html Constitution of the Soviet Union]</ref> and in practice took the form of totalitarianism. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. Many occasions have developed in countries commonly described as "communist," particularly the USSR where members of the ruling party have access to special stores to which which ordinary people have been barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). However, this is antithetical to the actual theory of communism which seeks to abolish class divisions and give control of the state directly to the citizens.

Marxist theory is often summed up with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In Marxist theory, the collective good is valued at a level above the [[incentive]] of personal gain. While this is often is interpreted by critics to mean that wages are fixed regardless of the work performed, in practice this is not the case. For instance, the USSR experimented with many different wage systems. <ref>[[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1822695 Russian Wage Systems under Communism]] Amy Hewes, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1922), pp. 274-278</ref> In the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx and Engels state "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." While some have characterized this as legalized theft, the text of the Communist Manifesto itself reveals that this is not a reference to personal possessions, but in the context of Marx's conception of property as [[captial]] refers to a gradual systematic shift in the way property is generated, as Marx felt that capital was generated by the unfair exploitation of workers. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." <ref>[http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The Communist Manifesto]</ref>

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Christian Communism==

Some variants of Communist thought draw their ideology from scripture, in the same manner as the protestant [[Social Gospel]] movement which sought to apply Christian ethics to social problems. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Christian Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

Unlike Marxists, who view Communism as an inevitable product of history, Christian Communists believe that Communism is compelled upon Christians by the teachings of Jesus Christ and by the love of God.

"The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death."<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2008-06-05T13:29:03Z

Xyrophile: /* Communists cite scripture */ clarified the definitions of social gospel and the sources of Christian communist ideology (this actually predates Marx)

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no society described as communist has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]

Communism describes a classless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. Like most political systems, there is significant debate among its proponents about how exactly this should take place, and several different streams of communist theory have been developed. The most common variants derive from Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], in [[The Communist Manifesto]] which asserts that the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production (or in layman's terms, the working class) is inevitable. The political philosophies of [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]] are are derived from Marxism. Other schools of communist thought apart from Marxism also exist such as [[Anarcho-communism]] and [[Christian Communism]] which draws its inspiration from scripture, particularly Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2:
'''42''' And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship '''44''' And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; '''45''' And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The nation most commonly thought of as "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991, although constitutionally, the USSR was a socialist federation seeking to build communism in the future<ref>[http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html Constitution of the Soviet Union]</ref> and in practice took the form of totalitarianism. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. Many occasions have developed in countries commonly described as "communist," particularly the USSR where members of the ruling party have access to special stores to which which ordinary people have been barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). However, this is antithetical to the actual theory of communism which seeks to abolish class divisions and give control of the state directly to the citizens.

Marxist theory is often summed up with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In Marxist theory, the collective good is valued at a level above the [[incentive]] of personal gain. While this is often is interpreted by critics to mean that wages are fixed regardless of the work performed, in practice this is not the case. For instance, the USSR experimented with many different wage systems. <ref>[[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1822695 Russian Wage Systems under Communism]] Amy Hewes, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1922), pp. 274-278</ref> In the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx and Engels state "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." While some have characterized this as legalized theft, the text of the Communist Manifesto itself reveals that this is not a reference to personal possessions, but in the context of Marx's conception of property as [[captial]] refers to a gradual systematic shift in the way property is generated, as Marx felt that capital was generated by the unfair exploitation of workers. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." <ref>[http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The Communist Manifesto]</ref>

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Christian Communists==

Some variants of Communist thought draw their ideology from scripture, in the same manner as the protestant [[Social Gospel]] movement which sought to apply Christian ethics to social problems. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Christian Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

Unlike Marxists, who view Communism as an inevitable product of history, Christian Communists believe that Communism is compelled upon Christians by the teachings of Jesus Christ and by the love of God.

"The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death."<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Nomenklatura

2008-06-05T13:06:26Z

Xyrophile:

The '''Nomenklatura''' were a self-appointed group running the administration of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] during the era when the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] had a political monopoly and outlawed opposition. At the time of the Soviet Union's demise along with the ''nomenklatura'' in 1992, nearly 300 million people were dominated, controlled, and were citizenshipless in the country of their birth, partly due to the confusing dual citizenship system in the USSR.

The idea of an elite and privileged ''nomenklatura'' to staff the civil service of the Soviet state originated with its founder, [[Vladimir Lenin]].

*Coextensive with the nomenklatura were patron-client relations similiar to what existed under [[feudalism]] -- the very cause thart give birth to Marxist Doctrine -- only the Nomenklatura had no legel authority as feudal lords did. Feudal lords gained position legally by inheritance, whereas Marxist theory and its ruling Nomenklature built its power by seizure, expropriation, and coercion. Officials under this regime who had the authority to appoint individuals to certain positions cultivated loyalties among those whom they appointed. The patron (the official making the appointment) promoted the interests of clients in return for their support. Powerful patrons, such as the members of the Politburo, had many clients. Moreover, an official could be both a client (in relation to a higher-level patron) and a patron (to other, lower-level officials).
*Because a client was beholden to his patron for his position, the client was eager to please his patron by carrying out his policies. The Soviet power structure essentially consisted of groups of vassals (clients) who had an overlord (the patron). The higher the patron, the more clients the patron had. Patrons protected their clients and tried to promote their careers. In return for the patron's efforts to promote their careers, the clients remained loyal to their patron. Thus, by promoting his clients' careers, the patron could advance his own power. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0203)]

[[Category:Politics]]

Nomenklatura

2008-06-05T13:05:29Z

Xyrophile: most residents of the soviet union had citizenship

The '''Nomenklatura''' were a self-appointed group running the administration of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] during the era when the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] had a political monopoly and outlawed opposition. At the time of the Soviet Union's demise along with the ''nomenklatura'' in 1992, nearly 300 million people were dominated, controlled, and were citizenshipless in the country of their birth.

The idea of an elite and privileged ''nomenklatura'' to staff the civil service of the Soviet state originated with its founder, [[Vladimir Lenin]].

*Coextensive with the nomenklatura were patron-client relations similiar to what existed under [[feudalism]] -- the very cause thart give birth to Marxist Doctrine -- only the Nomenklatura had no legel authority as feudal lords did. Feudal lords gained position legally by inheritance, whereas Marxist theory and its ruling Nomenklature built its power by seizure, expropriation, and coercion. Officials under this regime who had the authority to appoint individuals to certain positions cultivated loyalties among those whom they appointed. The patron (the official making the appointment) promoted the interests of clients in return for their support. Powerful patrons, such as the members of the Politburo, had many clients. Moreover, an official could be both a client (in relation to a higher-level patron) and a patron (to other, lower-level officials).
*Because a client was beholden to his patron for his position, the client was eager to please his patron by carrying out his policies. The Soviet power structure essentially consisted of groups of vassals (clients) who had an overlord (the patron). The higher the patron, the more clients the patron had. Patrons protected their clients and tried to promote their careers. In return for the patron's efforts to promote their careers, the clients remained loyal to their patron. Thus, by promoting his clients' careers, the patron could advance his own power. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0203)]

[[Category:Politics]]

Communism

2008-06-05T13:03:15Z

Xyrophile: /* Introduction */ If communism is classless by definition, and countries are run by a ruling class, logically they can't actually be communist, just described as such. Adjusted wording slightly

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no society described as communist has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]

Communism describes a classless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. Like most political systems, there is significant debate among its proponents about how exactly this should take place, and several different streams of communist theory have been developed. The most common variants derive from Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], in [[The Communist Manifesto]] which asserts that the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production (or in layman's terms, the working class) is inevitable. The political philosophies of [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]] are are derived from Marxism. Other schools of communist thought apart from Marxism also exist such as [[Anarcho-communism]] and [[Christian Communism]] which draws its inspiration from scripture, particularly Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2:
'''42''' And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship '''44''' And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; '''45''' And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The nation most commonly thought of as "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991, although constitutionally, the USSR was a socialist federation seeking to build communism in the future<ref>[http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html Constitution of the Soviet Union]</ref> and in practice took the form of totalitarianism. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. Many occasions have developed in countries commonly described as "communist," particularly the USSR where members of the ruling party have access to special stores to which which ordinary people have been barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). However, this is antithetical to the actual theory of communism which seeks to abolish class divisions and give control of the state directly to the citizens.

Marxist theory is often summed up with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In Marxist theory, the collective good is valued at a level above the [[incentive]] of personal gain. While this is often is interpreted by critics to mean that wages are fixed regardless of the work performed, in practice this is not the case. For instance, the USSR experimented with many different wage systems. <ref>[[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1822695 Russian Wage Systems under Communism]] Amy Hewes, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1922), pp. 274-278</ref> In the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx and Engels state "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." While some have characterized this as legalized theft, the text of the Communist Manifesto itself reveals that this is not a reference to personal possessions, but in the context of Marx's conception of property as [[captial]] refers to a gradual systematic shift in the way property is generated, as Marx felt that capital was generated by the unfair exploitation of workers. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." <ref>[http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The Communist Manifesto]</ref>

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2008-06-05T12:59:18Z

Xyrophile: /* Theory */ Cleaned up some formatting and rearranged the beginning of the theory section

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]

Communism describes a classless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. Like most political systems, there is significant debate among its proponents about how exactly this should take place, and several different streams of communist theory have been developed. The most common variants derive from Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], in [[The Communist Manifesto]] which asserts that the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production (or in layman's terms, the working class) is inevitable. The political philosophies of [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]] are are derived from Marxism. Other schools of communist thought apart from Marxism also exist such as [[Anarcho-communism]] and [[Christian Communism]] which draws its inspiration from scripture, particularly Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2:
'''42''' And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship '''44''' And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; '''45''' And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The nation most commonly thought of as "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991, although constitutionally, the USSR was a socialist federation seeking to build communism in the future<ref>[http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html Constitution of the Soviet Union]</ref> and in practice took the form of totalitarianism. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. Many occasions have developed in countries commonly described as "communist," particularly the USSR where members of the ruling party have access to special stores to which which ordinary people have been barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). However, this is antithetical to the actual theory of communism which seeks to abolish class divisions and give control of the state directly to the citizens.

Marxist theory is often summed up with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In Marxist theory, the collective good is valued at a level above the [[incentive]] of personal gain. While this is often is interpreted by critics to mean that wages are fixed regardless of the work performed, in practice this is not the case. For instance, the USSR experimented with many different wage systems. <ref>[[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1822695 Russian Wage Systems under Communism]] Amy Hewes, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1922), pp. 274-278</ref> In the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx and Engels state "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." While some have characterized this as legalized theft, the text of the Communist Manifesto itself reveals that this is not a reference to personal possessions, but in the context of Marx's conception of property as [[captial]] refers to a gradual systematic shift in the way property is generated, as Marx felt that capital was generated by the unfair exploitation of workers. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." <ref>[http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The Communist Manifesto]</ref>

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but [[atheism]] is at first far from being communism; indeed, that [[atheism]] is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The [[atheism]] in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]