Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-09T02:42:56Z

Houshalter: /* Explanation for some counterexamples */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]

== My plans for this article ==

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

:I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-08T17:51:00Z

Houshalter:

Irreducible complexity

2010-08-02T16:35:01Z

Houshalter:

'''Irreducible Complexity''' an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of [[intelligent design]] claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort.

For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function. A car could not just evolve.
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[William Dembski]] in his book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>

However, organisms that appear to have no unnecessary parts could have been built up from simpler parts that are no longer necessary. Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hangar]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.

William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
{{Cquote|In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." <ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|left|170px|thumb|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In addition, [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{Cquote|Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

[[Intelligent design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.

Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he says could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.

Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":

:Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of [[intelligent design]] to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.

The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref>

Image:http://flaming-water.com/IrriducibleTable.jpg|Example of common critism of irreducible complexity. In it's defense, the table is very simple compared to most biological systems.

== See also ==
*[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]

{{evolution}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Irreducible complexity

2010-08-02T16:34:09Z

Houshalter:

'''Irreducible Complexity''' an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of [[intelligent design]] claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort.

For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function. A car could not just evolve.
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[William Dembski]] in his book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>

However, organisms that appear to have no unnecessary parts could have been built up from simpler parts that are no longer necessary. Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hangar]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.

William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
{{Cquote|In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." <ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|left|170px|thumb|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In addition, [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{Cquote|Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

[[Intelligent design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.

Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he says could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.

Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":

:Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of [[intelligent design]] to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.

The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref>

Image:flaming-water.com/IrriducibleTable.jpg|Example of common critism of irreducible complexity. In it's defense, the table is very simple compared to most biological systems.

== See also ==
*[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]

{{evolution}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-02T16:23:12Z

Houshalter: /* Expanding to other scientific theories */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-08-02T16:21:51Z

Houshalter:

Talk:Liberal

2010-08-02T14:45:24Z

Houshalter:

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>