Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-05-06T12:04:06Z

BorisTheFerret:

[[Image:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the junior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]] and was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] from 1993 to 2001. In 2000, she ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She is now making a presidential run, and she formally announced her candidacy in early 2007.

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of Enron-style accounting on the Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." [http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html] As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. <ref>[http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html]</ref>

==Run for U.S. Senate==
===Pardon of FALN terrorists===
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieved from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> It was widely reported the pardon of terrorists was motivated by an effort to appeal for votes from the Puerto Rican community in New York.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm FALN Clemency and NY Senate Race], (2000). Retrieved from http://www.jonathanpollard.org September 20,2007.</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations. <ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.
<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==

=== Hillary & Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll undertaken in June of 2007, in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref> The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates, or possible candidates, to avoid voting for her.

===Promises made promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Extreme makeover===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of Stolen Gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

{{liberalism}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:United States Senators|Clinton, Hillary Rodham]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]

Young Earth Creationism

2008-05-06T11:52:31Z

BorisTheFerret: Just a minor alteration to provide a more objective exploration of the Young Earth Creationist 'theory'.

Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000[1] and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact, or that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, and other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted.[3]

Many Young Earth creationists are active in the development of creation science, a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of young Earth Creation Science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society.

Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[4][5][6][7] The lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that Young Earth creationist claims have no scientific validity. For example, a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists as evidence-based facts that have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence, that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[8]

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Origins
1.2 Decline
1.3 Revival
1.4 Oriental Orthodox Church
2 Characteristics and beliefs
2.1 Age of the Earth
2.2 Attitude towards science
2.3 View of the Bible
2.4 Interpretation of Genesis
2.5 Human history
2.6 Animal behavior
2.7 Diversification of life
2.8 Palaeontology and dinosaurs
3 Comparison with other forms of creationism
3.1 Old Earth creationism
3.2 Gap creationism
3.3 The Omphalos hypothesis
4 Criticism
4.1 Scientific
4.2 Theological
5 References
6 See also
6.1 Church bodies whose official position is YEC
7 External links
7.1 Websites supportive of YEC
7.2 Young Earth videos
7.3 Websites critical of YEC
7.4 Articles

[edit] History

[edit] Origins
Some Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[1] However, Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literalist interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[9] Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true (however this being said, all of these men certainly did believe in a young earth[10]). The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.

The belief that the universe was made by a rational Creator was held by many of the founders of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicolas Steno, all of whom followed the empirical Baconian method described by Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), who emphasised that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible.[11]

In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).

[edit] Decline
Support for Young Earth creationism declined from the 18th century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, and scientific paradigm shifts. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older (indeed, he asserted that the Earth was infinitely old). Hutton stated that "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle."[12]

Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. Before long, scientific inquiries building upon his claims had pushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.[13]

Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism, or Gradualism were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. This philosophy governed the interpretation of geological data by the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists. By mid-century, mainstream science had abandoned Young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis account with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[14]

John H Mears was one such scholar who proposed several theories varying from a mix of long/indefinite periods with moments of creation to a day-age theory of indefinite 'days'. He subscribed to the latter theory (indefinite days) and found support from the side of James Dwight Dana, Professor at Yale and one of the fathers of Mineralogy who wrote a paper consisting of 4 articles named 'Science and the Bible' on the topic.[15] With the acceptance by many biblical scholars of a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in the light of the breakthrough results of Lyell and supported by a number of renowned (christian) scientific scholars, a new hurdle was taken in the future acceptance of Developmentalism (based on Darwin's Natural selection). [16]

In the 20th century, many religious groups abandoned (Young Earth) creationism as a literal description of the Earth's history altogether and came to regard the biblical account of creation in Genesis as purely allegorical or mythological.[citation needed]

[edit] Revival
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution. In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur 'armchair geologist', whose writings were based upon reading geological texts and documents, rather than field or laboratory work,[17] wrote The New Geology to provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book was partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. This attracted only a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[18] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).

In the 1950’s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren,and other scientists[19], Ramm influenced Christian organisations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.

Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-Uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[20]

This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes,

... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century"[21]

Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages.

In 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which included the following:

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about Earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.[22]

As of 2007 a USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 53% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Whereas 66% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[23]

The revival of Young Earth creationism has had a periodic impact on science education, particularly in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching Young Earth creationist doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy) side by side with the theory of evolution.

Young Earth creationism has failed to make an impact in more liberal circles of Christianity. For example, the Articles of Faith of the Baptist Church states no required beliefs concerning creation.[24] Some Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support Young Earth creationism.[25]

[edit] Oriental Orthodox Church
Young Earth creationism has always been the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Church, without having gone through any decline and revival. Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, a Coptic Orthodox scholar, expresses the typical Oriental Orthodox view as follows:

Using mathematical calculations, man cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Assuming that every family had three children (a low number compared to previous centuries) and after accounting for natural death catastrophes and wars, we find that the world's population would approximate what it actually is now. If human history goes back a million years, then the world's population would have needed several times the land space we have now.[26]

[edit] Characteristics and beliefs

[edit] Age of the Earth
Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old,[27] rather than the age of 4.6 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. Young Earth creationists typically derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce.[28]

Young Earth creationists believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark. (Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much earlier around 3536 BC.) They assert that this global flood caused a multitude of geological features that scientists regard as evidence of an old Earth.

[edit] Attitude towards science
Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history. Young Earth Creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as stated in the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some Young Earth Creationists to criticize intelligent design, a proposal which some see as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer. Some Young Earth Creationists see this as too compromising.[29]

Young Earth creationists challenge the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which they conflate with philosophical naturalism, and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the scientific community. They assert instead that available physical evidence best supports original catastrophism and a young Earth. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.

[edit] View of the Bible
Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. They accept its authority as the central organizing text for human life — the sole indisputable source of knowledge on every topic with which it deals. As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.[30][31] For the vast majority of Young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all."[30]Therefore, Young Earth Creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. The corollary is that many Young Earth Creationists regard Christians who do not regard Genesis as historically accurate as being inconsistent.

[edit] Interpretation of Genesis
Young Earth creationists interpret the text of Genesis in a strictly literal fashion. Therefore, they believe that God created the world in six normal-length days, and planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of an original human couple (Adam and Eve). As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, childbirth became painful, and physical death entered the world. Some Young Earth Creationists assert that prior to the Fall all animals were herbivores (see below).

The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth Creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men; up to Methuselah who lived 969 years. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age. Proponents of Old Earth Creationism, tend to interpret the genealogies as incomplete, and usually interpret the days of Genesis 1 figuratively as long periods of time.

Young Earth Creationists believe that the great flood described in Genesis 6-9 was global in extent, and submerged the highest mountains on Earth. A range of suggestions are made to account for the mechanism for such a deluge. Earlier generations (following the lead of Morris and Whitcomb) believed that an orbiting vapor canopy collapsed, generating extreme rainfall (from "windows of heaven"). In more recent times it has been proposed that radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") was largely responsible for the flood — elaborate theories such as Catastrophic plate tectonics and hydroplates have been put forward by some. These theories have the added benefit of explaining how the flood transformed an originally flatter Earth, raising up mountains and dropping sea beds; this then solves the problem of finding sufficient water to cover Mount Everest. Whatever the case, almost all Young Earth creationists refer to a loosely codified idea called "Flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the Great Flood.

To support their belief in a worldwide flood, YECs argue that anthropological evidence supports their belief that every culture studied has, in its history, a myth or story similar to that of Noah in two aspects: 1) the occurrence of a catastrophic flood and 2) human and animal life saved by a man who built a large boat and took aboard it for the duration of the flood enough life to repopulate the Earth.[citation needed] According to Genesis, two of every "unclean" kind of animal (male and female) and seven of every "clean" kind of animal were placed on the ark during the flood.

After the flood, Genesis reports increasingly shortened lifespans dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Some Young Earth creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained.[32] Another theory[citation needed] suggests that the Earth had a higher concentration of oxygen prior to the Flood, possibly due to a layer of water vapor ("vapor canopy") above the Earth. The result of such a postulation would be a giant Hyperbaric Chamber, extending lifespans. Yet others hypothesize that the "firmament" of the "waters above" screened the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, which they argue, shorten life expectancy.

[edit] Human history
In keeping with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, Young Earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the universal ancestors of the entire human race; accordingly it is usually held that their sons and daughters married amongst themselves to produce the next generation of children.[33] Noah's flood is supposed to have killed all humans on Earth with the exception of Noah and his sons and their wives. All humans alive today are therefore believed to be descended from this single family, which carried the gene pool for the entire human race. In contradiction to what is accepted by anthropologists, Young Earth creationists assert that native Americans, Australian aborigines and all other races arose from the migration of people around the world following the Tower of Babel event in the 3rd millennium BC.

Genealogies in the Genesis text identify individuals named Egypt, Gomer, Sheba, Canaan, and Sidon, who are said to have founded the cities and civilizations that were later to bear their names.

[edit] Animal behavior
Young Earth creationists usually interpret Genesis to teach that prior to the Fall of man there was no predatory or carnivorous activity amongst animals, and animals did not die. It is thought that all animals, together with humans, subsisted on an entirely vegetarian diet.[34] This raises the question of what was the original (i.e. pre-Fall) function of such things as snake venom and spiders webs. YECs typically answer these questions either by postulating a non-lethal original purpose for these predatory mechanisms (eg. snake venom was designed to soften fruit), or suggesting that these mechanisms were miraculously added to animals by God or the devil at the time of the Fall.[35]

The implication of these ideas - that before the Fall animals would eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth - is not considered a problem by some YECs since they believe that the Earth did not remain in its unfallen state for any (generationally) appreciable time.[36]

[edit] Diversification of life
YECs also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Most YECs believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection. The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based upon hypothesized sunken land bridges between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel. Many YECs assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information.

[edit] Palaeontology and dinosaurs
The significance of this issue to young Earth creationists has its roots in a biblical interpretation of the fall of man that results in sin bringing death into the world, not just for mankind but for all creatures.[37]

As it is a modern coinage derived from Greek, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur",[38] but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan·ˈnin/) has been interpreted as referring to them by some Christians.[39]In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) that "moves his tail like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree; creationists often identify the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs. Other creationists refer to "behemoth" as the Brachiosaurus, since the Bible says in Job, "He is the chief of the ways of God." Meaning he is the largest animal God created. [39] However, certain scholars postulate that the reference to the cedar tree actually refers to its needle-like leaves, which resemble the bristly hair present on the tails of modern elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses.[40] Other critics contend that the word "tail" is a euphemism for the animal's penis, and that the passage should be understood as describing its virility.[41][42]

Carcass found by the Zuiyo Maru, said to be a plesiosaur-like creature by some creationists; scientists who have studied it concluded the remains to belong to a basking shark.The Leviathan is another creature referred to in the Bible's Old Testament; it is described as having a variety of dinosaur, dragon, and water-serpent-like characteristics. Some scholars identify the Leviathan in Job c. 41 with the nile crocodile, or point out that it has seven heads and is purely mythical. As with the behemoth, creationists have sometimes tried to connect the Leviathan with the dinosaurs.[43]

Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[44][45] Usually, they assert that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the Great Flood. Most believe that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in his Ark[46], and that they gradually became extinct as a result of a vastly different post-flood environment.[47] The newly-established Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs co-existing before the Flood. For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned these claims, as careful scrutiny has shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena.[48] Some creationists assert that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures such as plesiosaurs) still survive in isolated spots, accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[49] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[50] Creationists sometimes turn to cryptozoology to support the idea that creatures known from fossils lived alongside humans in historical times.

One view proposed by some is that the serpent in the Garden of Eden may have actually been a type of dinosaur.[51] They point out that, according to Christian interpretation, God was speaking to the Devil when he cursed the serpent, not to an ordinary snake. Young Earth creationists occasionally claim that dinosaurs survived in Australia, and that Aboriginal legends of reptilian monsters are evidence of this[52], referring to what is known as Megalania (Varanus priscus). However, Megalania was a gigantic monitor lizard, and not a dinosaur, as its discoverer, Richard Owens, realized that the skeletal remains were that of a lizard, and not an archosaur.

[edit] Comparison with other forms of creationism
Young Earth creationism is only one of several forms of creationism. Young Earth creationists typically oppose these alternative theories, which they consider to be as "compromises" with science[53] or otherwise flawed.

[edit] Old Earth creationism
See also: Old Earth creationism.
Young Earth creationists reject Old Earth creationism and Day-Age Creationism on textual and theological grounds. In addition, Young Earth creationists claim the scientific data in geology and astronomy point to a young Earth, against the consensus of the general scientific community.

Young Earth creationists generally hold that when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time, but argue that whenever the latter interpretation is used it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20).[54]

Further, Young Earth creationists argue that their position is the only way to explain the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the world. They argue that all long-age views entail death before sin, which they regard as a severe theological error, violating Genesis 3, and for Christians, Romans 5:12–19, 8:17–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.[55]. Further discussion and refutation of these objections can be found on the Day-Age Creationism page.

[edit] Gap creationism
See also: Gap creationism.
The "gap theory" acknowledges a vast age for the universe, including the Earth and solar system, while asserting that life was created recently in six 24-hour days by divine fiat. Genesis 1 is thus interpreted literally, with an indefinite "gap" of time inserted between the first two verses. (Some gap theorists insert a "primordial creation" and Lucifer's rebellion into the gap.)

Most Young Earth creationist organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms.[56][57] It is asserted that the entire universe is only thousands of years old.

[edit] The Omphalos hypothesis
Many Young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the Omphalos hypothesis, today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Gosse's hypothesis was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. He proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. Gosse's hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. This was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied a deceitful God, which was theologically unacceptable.

Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel,[58] and in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still used in Young Earth creationist literature.[59][60][61]

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Scientific
Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[62] Many scientists see it as a faith position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which God took no part in this process.[63] Some scientists who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind. Kent Hovind commented on discussing the topic of people asking, "Couldn't God use Evolution to create?" He gives the answer, "Well, it wouldn't be the God of the Bible! The "god" that would use an evolutionary process is cruel, and wasteful, and retarded! Doesn't he know what He wants? Can't He just make it right in six days? Poof! Or six seconds!"[cite this quote]

Critics argue that every challenge to evolution by Young Earth creationists is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians, although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.

Christian Young Earth creationists adhere strongly to the concept of biblical inerrancy, which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by Young Earth creationism. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles[64]. Young Earth creationists also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.[65]

[edit] Theological
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.[66] Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great and John Calvin answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.[67] One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[68][69] See creationist cosmologies for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in Genesis 1. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the Priestly source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older Jahwist material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in KJV and NIV).[70] Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled The Gift of Scripture[71], the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."[72] However, that view of the inerrancy of scripture was rejected by Paul VI in the formulation of Dei Verbum 11 forcing the commission to adjust the wording and add crucial footnotes to keep it in line with prior teaching. The relater then said that it was not to be understood as limiting biblical inerrancy to only matters of salvation. However that view has since become predominant due to the deliberate decision to interpret it in a heterodox manner regardless of what it was truly asserting.[improper synthesis?][clarify] By contrast, Young Earth creationists contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.[73]

While some theologians believe there is an inherent conflict between the Bible and science, popular Christian thought holds to the value of science in understanding the physical world. In this view the Bible serves to give understanding about God and the state of mankind (of which the accuracy of the Genesis account is a factor) and that supposed clashes between them are merely a matter of faulty understanding. Christian theologians and scientists like Augustine of Hippo and Gallileo held that, the literality creation in Genesis were believed to be true at the time, it doesn't destroy Christianity to suggest future scientific discoveries might change the way we view this account but, in the same way science could clarify the content of Scripture, it could also stand opposed to it and neither of these men ever proposed that science was superior or more reliable than the Bible.[clarify] This theological understanding is also upheld by the majority of Young Earth creationists — that science is a very useful tool but still only a tool and that if, by science, something is found to contradict with the Bible, we should first question the science before trying to shift our understanding of the Bible.

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, Young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creationist mythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).

[edit] References
^ a b James-Griffiths, P. "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition". Creation 26 (2): 53-55. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical.
^ The First Six Days (of Creation): Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth. Retrieved on 2007-08-25.
^ Sheppard, P (2005). The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Buckna, D (2007). Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Unruh, B (2006). Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (2006). US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN. The Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution. the Interacademy Panel on international issues (2006). Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Cherry, S (2006). Crisis management via Bilbical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Cantor, G Swetlitz, M, editors. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226092775.
^ Origen: < 10,000 years, Celsus, 1.20; Augustine: < 5,600 years, City 12.11; Eusebius: 5,228 years, Chronicle; Clement 5,592 years, Miscellanies 1.21
^ Moore, James. Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin. Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ 'Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.
^ Theory of the Earth full text (1788 version)
^ Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell, University of California Museum of Paleontology
^ Dana, Phd. Professor at Yale, James Dwight (1856-1857). Science and the Bible, a review of and the six days of creation of Prof. Lewis Taylor. Bibl. Soc.. URL: Prof. James Dwight Dana, Science and the Bible, online version
^ Bible.org, Darwinism and New England Theology (2004). Retrieved on 2007-07-08.
^ The Creationists (Expanded Edition), p92, 106 Ronald Numbers, 2006 — which explicitly describes Price as an "armchair scientist"
^ Marston, P & Forster, R (2001). Reason Science and Faith. Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1579106614. Retrieved on 2007-06-30.
^ Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians
^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385
^ (Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).
^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition. Bible Research (1978). Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ [ http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 1-3, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.]
^ Church Denominations, Creation Science
^ Philip Porvaznik. Dialogue on Evolution versus Creationism. Catholic Apologetics International. Retrieved on 2007-10-10.
^ Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, Commentary on the Book of Genesis (1998) p. 22.
^ Evidence for a young Earth
^ Jonathan Sarfati. Archbishop’s achievement. Answers in Genesis.
^ Carl Wieland (30 August 2002). AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement. Answers in Genesis.
^ a b Morris, HM (2000). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512913.
^ Morris, HM (2000). Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation & the Flood. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512937.
^ Carl Wieland. Living for 900 years. Answers in Genesis.
^ Cain’s wife — who was she?. Answers In Genesis.
^ Creation’s original diet and the changes at the Fall. Answers in Genesis.
^ How did bad things come about?. Answers in Genesis.
^ Wayne A. Grudem "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine", Zondervan, 1996. ISBN 0-3102-8670-0
^ Ham, Ken. What happened to the dinosaurs?. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
^ The term was first used by Robert Owen in 1842
^ a b Dinosaurs and the Bible. Clarifying Christianity' (2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
^ Bright, Michael (2006). Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible, p346. 1861058314.
^ Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-66165-9.
^ CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur. Retrieved on 2007-09-13.
^ Claim CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur. the TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
^ Dinosaurs and the Bible. Answers in Genisis. Retrieved on 2007-12-23.
^ In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground. The Washington Post.
^ Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark: US museum. ABC News (Australia). Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
^ What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? - Answers in Genesis
^ Edwords, Frederick. Seeing the Light. Humanist.
^ Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible
^ Letting rotting sharks lie
^ To The Ends Of The Earth--Dinosaurs in the Bible. Retrieved on 2007-09-14.
^ Driver, Rebecca. Australia’s Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
^ Get Answers: Creation Compromises
^ How long were the days of Genesis 1?
^ The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe
^ Henry M. Morris (December 1987). The gap theory — an idea with holes?. Retrieved on 2007-02-14.
^ Don Batten (June 2004). ‘Soft’ gap sophistry. Retrieved on 2007-02-14.
^ Did Adam have a belly-button?
^ Apologetics Press - Apparent Age
^ The Apparent Age Argument
^ Appearance of Age - theology overview & web-links
^ History of Science: Early Modern Geology. Retrieved on 2007-09-24.
^ Gallup Poll 1997.
^ Amazing admission
^ Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
^ A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis
^ How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?
^ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
^ Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis
^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis
^ http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)
^ Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times Online
^ ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’

[edit] See also
Creationism Portal
Young Earth Creationist cosmologies
Flood Geology
History of Creationism
Dating Creation
Rapid-decay theory
Ussher chronology
Existence
Timeline of the Universe
Ultimate fate of the Universe
Creator god
Day-Age Creationism
Gap Creationism
Cosmogony
Cosmological argument
Biblical cosmology
Deism
Theism
Starlight problem
Living dinosaurs
Quran
Rationalism
Elohim
Higher criticism
Ex nihilo
Sons of Noah
Antediluvian

[edit] Church bodies whose official position is YEC
Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Protestant Reformed Churches in America

[edit] External links

[edit] Websites supportive of YEC
Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International
Institute for Creation Research
Creation science evangelism

[edit] Young Earth videos
Critical Review of Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth - a Young Earth video
The Evolution of a Creationist 4 part DVD - Four 15 minute clips from Dr. Jobe Martin's new DVD series

[edit] Websites critical of YEC
The TalkOrigins Archive
No Answers In Genesis
EvoWiki
Answers In Creation - Old Earth creationist website purportedly demonstrating the errors of Young Earth creationism

[edit] Articles
Bradshaw, Robert I., "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth"
Grigg, R., 1993. Should Genesis be taken literally?, Creation '16'(1):38–41 (principles of biblical interpretation, hermeneutics)
Steinmann, A., 2002. אחד (Echad) as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5 (PDF), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 45(4):577–584 (argues that the numbering and definite article patterns of Genesis 1 indicate 24-hour days)
Hasel, G.F., 1994. The ‘days’ of creation in Genesis 1: Literal ‘days’ or figurative ‘periods/epochs’ of time?, Origins '21'(1):5–38 (defends literal days).
McCabe, R.V., 2000. A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week (PDF), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal '5:'97–123, 2000
Stambaugh, 1991. Days of Creation: A semantic approach TJ '5'(1):70–78 (analyses the meaning of Hebrew yôm ("day") in different context and long-age words, concludes that creation days were 24 hours)
Sarfati, J., 2003. Biblical chronogenealogies, TJ '17'(3):14–18 (defends Masoretic chronology of Gen. 5 & 11, and rejects gaps)
Grigg, R., 2003. Meeting the ancestors, Creation '25'(2):13–15 (on the genealogies and lifespans)
Grigg, R., 1997. From the beginning of Creation: Does Genesis have a gap?, Creation '19'(2):35–38 (why YECs reject the gap theory)
Batten, D., 1996. Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists'), from AiG, Creation '18'(3):37
Grigg, R., 2001. Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?, Creation '23'(3):20–22 (AiG answers "No, but …")
US poll results — Public beliefs about evolution and creation
Evowiki article on the History of Young Earth creationismthe more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref>, and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Religion]]

Climate agenda

2008-05-06T11:42:44Z

BorisTheFerret: Expansion of the page to incorporate the positions of various scientific establishments on the issue of climate change.

'''Climate change''' is one of the top environmental issues, with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether recent [[global warming]] is more natural or man-made.

However, the majority of assessments carried out by national and international scientific academies and professional societies have followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

==Statements by concurring organizations==
=== Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 ===
{{main|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}}

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]]. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.<ref>{{cite news |title=Warming 'very likely' human-made |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |publisher=[[BBC]] |date=[[2007-02-01]] |accessdate=2007-02-01 }}</ref>

[[The New York Times]] reports on the report:
:The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is ''very likely'' caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase ''very likely'' translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?ex=1328158800&en=61f42312221df544&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss%3Cbr%20/%3E Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’] Rosenthal, Elisabeth for The New York Times, February [[2007]]</ref>

:The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 ''more likely than not'' can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/earth/06clim.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=53862c0cdf77d1c0&ex=1328418000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty] Stevens, William for The New York Times, February [[2007]]</ref>

The [[Associated Press]] summarizes the position on sea level rise:
:On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable] Fox News, February [[2007]]</ref>

=== InterAcademy Council ===

As the representative of all the world’s 150 scientific and engineering academies<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/business/worldbusiness/23energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times ''Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy'']</ref><ref>[ http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/3239.aspx About IAC]</ref>, the
[http://www.interacademycouncil.net/ InterAcademy Council] (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled ''Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future''.

:Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.<ref>[http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/11840/11842.aspx IAC report ''Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future'' Forward]</ref>

:Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.<ref>[http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/11840/11971/11979.aspx IAC report ''Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future'' 5.2 Conclusion]</ref>

=== Joint science academies’ statement 2007 ===
In preparation for the 2007 [[33rd G8 summit|G8 summit]], the national science academies of the [[G8+5]] nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 ''joint science academies' statement'', and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]], the [http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/archive/current/joint-science-academies-statement-on-climate-protection-handed-over-to-chancellor-merkel declaration] states:
:It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], [[China]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Italy]], [[India]], [[Japan]], [[Mexico]], [[Russia]], [[South Africa]], the [[United Kingdom]], and the [[United States]].

=== Joint science academies’ statement 2005 ===
In 2005 the national science academies of the [[G8]] nations, plus [[Brazil]], [[China]] and [[India]], three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action<ref>[http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222 Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change] June [[2005]]</ref>, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], [[China]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[India]], [[Italy]], [[Japan]], [[Russia]], the [[United Kingdom]], and the [[United States]].

=== Joint science academies’ statement 2001 ===
In 2001, following the publication of the [[IPCC Third Assessment Report]], sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of [[Australia]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], the [[Caribbean]], [[China]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[India]], [[Indonesia]], [[Ireland]], [[Italy]], [[Malaysia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Sweden]], and the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>[http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 The Science of Climate Change] from ''www.royalsociety.org''</ref>

=== International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences ===

In October 2007, the [http://www.caets.org/nae/naecaets.nsf?opendatabase International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences] (CAETS) issued a ''Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth''<ref>[http://www.caets.org/nae/naecaets.nsf/(weblinks)/WSAN-78QL9A?OpenDocument CAETS Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth]</ref>

:As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.

:CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

=== European Academy of Sciences and Arts ===

In March of 2007, the [[European Academy of Sciences and Arts]] issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most ''likely'' responsible for climate warming.
Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is ''likely'' to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “<ref>{{cite web | title=Lets be Honest | publisher=[[European Academy of Sciences and Arts]] | url=http://www.european-academy.at/memorandum/31._LET'S_BE_HONEST_-_Festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf | date=[[2007-03-03]] | accessdate=2008-04-01 }}</ref>

=== Network of African Science Academies ===
In 2007, the [[Network of African Science Academies]] submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.

“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”

“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/4/825/NASAC%20G8%20statement%2007%20-%20low%20res.pdf | title=Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change | year=[[2007]] | accessdate=2008-03-29 | publisher=[[Network of African Science Academies]] }}</ref>

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of [[Cameroon]], [[Ghana]], [[Kenya]], [[Madagascar]], [[Nigeria]], [[Senegal]], [[South Africa]], [[Sudan]], [[Tanzania]], [[Uganda]], [[Zambia]], [[Zimbabwe]], as well as the [[African Academy of Sciences]].

=== International Council for Science ===

In October 2007, the [[International Council for Science]] issued a “key ICSU statement” which concurred “it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. The IPCC is one of many examples of the importance of providing scientific understanding as a basis for sound policy making.”<ref>[http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1505_DD_FILE_StatementTR_UNESCO_34GC_20-10-07.pdf ICSU Statement to UNESCO 34th General Conference]</ref>

=== European Science Foundation ===

The [[European Science Foundation]] has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."<ref>[ http://www.esf.org/publications/position-papers.html European Science Foundation Position Paper ''Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment - Ecosystems Approach'' pp. 7-10]</ref>

===American Association for the Advancement of Science===
In December of 2006, the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."<ref name="aaas board">[http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change] ''www.aaas.org'' December [[2006]]</ref>

=== Federation of American Scientists ===
In their Energy and Environment Overview, the [[Federation of American Scientists]] state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond." <ref>[http://www.fas.org/programs/energy/index.html FAS web page, retrieved 3/25/08]</ref>

=== World Meteorological Organization ===
In its ''Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change'', the [[World Meteorological Organization]] (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.”
<ref>[http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/documents/SG21_2006_E.pdf WMO’s Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.]</ref>

=== American Meteorological Society ===
The [[American Meteorological Society]] (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.<ref>[http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences] from ''www.ametsoc.org''</ref>

=== Royal Meteorological Society (UK) ===
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the [[Royal Meteorological Society]] issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” <ref>[http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332 Royal Meteorological Society’s statement on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.</ref>

=== Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society ===

The [http://www.amos.org.au/ Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society] has issued a ''Statement on Climate Change'', wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”<ref>[http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications AMOS ''Statement on Climate Change'']</ref>

=== Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society ===
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."<ref>[http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html] Updated, 2007</ref>

=== Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences ===

In November of 2005, the [[Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences]] (CFCAS) issued a letter to the [[Prime Minister of Canada]] in which they stated that they “concur with the Joint Science Academies statement that ‘climate change is real’”. Additionally, the CFCAS stated that they “endorse the assessment of climate science undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its conclusion that ‘There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributed to human activities.’”<ref>[http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005]</ref>

=== American Geophysical Union ===
The [[American Geophysical Union]] (AGU) statement <ref>[http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml Human Impacts on Climate]</ref> adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

:The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

=== American Institute of Physics ===
The Governing Board of the [[American Institute of Physics]] endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:<ref>[http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change], American Institute of Physics, 2003</ref>

:The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

=== American Astronomical Society ===
The [[American Astronomical Society]] has endorsed the AGU statement:<ref>[http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.php#climate Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change], American Astronomical Society, 2004</ref>

:In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

=== American Physical Society ===

In November of 2007, the [[American Physical Society]] (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."<ref>[http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm], American Physical Society, 2007</ref>

===American Chemical Society===
The [[American Chemical Society]] stated:
:Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
:
:The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.<ref>{{cite web | title=Statement on Global Climate Change | publisher=[[American Chemical Society]] | year=2007 | accessdate=2008-01-09 | url=http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_007661/pdf/WPCP_007661.pdf }}</ref>

=== National Research Council (US) ===
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] published ''Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions'' <ref>[http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/ Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions]</ref>. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

:The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.<ref>[http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions]</ref>

=== Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) ===
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:
:Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.<ref>[http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere] ''www.climatescience.gov''</ref>

=== American Quaternary Association ===
The [[American Quaternary Association]] (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” <ref>[http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf AMQUA “Petroleum Geologists’ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate”]</ref>

===Geological Society of America===
"The [[Geological Society of America]] (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."<ref>[http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm Global Climate Change] Position Statement</ref>

===Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)===
"[[Engineers Australia]] believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."<ref>[http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/representation/policy-positions/climate-change.cfm Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy] February [[2007]]</ref>

===Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London===
The Stratigraphy Commission of the [[Geological Society of London]] stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."<ref>[http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html Global warming: a perspective from earth history] ''www.geolsoc.org.uk''</ref>

=== European Geosciences Union ===

In July 2005, the [[European Geosciences Union]] (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” <ref>[http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/egustatement.pdf Position Statement of the Division of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union on Climate Change.]</ref>

=== International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics ===

In July of 2007, the [[International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics]] (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.”
They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” <ref>[http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf IUGG Resolution 6]</ref>

=== International Union of Geological Sciences ===

In their ''Climate Change'' prospectus for the [[International Year of Planet Earth]] project, the [[International Union of Geological Sciences]] (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”<ref>[ http://www.iugs.org/PDF/05_climatechange.pdf IUGS pdf ''Climate Change'' p.6]</ref>

<blockquote>
''We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.''<ref>[ http://www.iugs.org/PDF/05_climatechange.pdf IUGS pdf ''Climate Change'' p.9]</ref>
</blockquote>

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of "[[greenhouse gases]]".

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

:... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known. [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM]

William Happer wrote:
:The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere. [http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf]

See also:
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]