Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Norway

2011-05-28T16:59:11Z

Kantarella: /* Culture */

{{Country
|name =''Kongeriket Norge''
|map =Norway rel96.jpg
|map2 =Norway location.png
|flag =Flag of Norway.png
|arms =Arms of Norway.png
|capital =Oslo
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Norwegian
|king =Harald V of Norway{{!}}Harald V
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Jens Stoltenberg
|pm-raw =
|area =148,746 sq mi
|pop =4,753,400 (2008)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$213.6 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$46,300 (2006)
|currency =Norwegian krone
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Norway''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital is [[Oslo]], and the principal language in [[Norwegian]], though [[Sami]] languages are also spoken in the far north. Norway is one of the few Western European nations not in the [[European Union]] but is a member of the Schengen Agreement group of countries which permit cross-border travel without passport control. It belongs to [[NATO]] and is a strong ally of the United States.

Norway has escaped the [[Recession of 2008]] largely unscathed, partly by tapping into its oil and gas-fueled sovereign wealth fund — currently valued at more than 2.4 trillion kroner ($400 billion). Unemployment stands at 3%, among the lowest in Europe.

Oil and gas pumped from North Sea platforms have made the country of 4.8 million people one of the world's richest nations. Norway is the world's third largest exporter of natural gas and the sixth largest exporter of oil. While oil production has been falling in recent years, natural gas production continues to rise.

==People==
[[File:Royal Guardsman in Oslo.JPG|thumb|left|Royal Guardsman in Oslo.]]
Ethnically, Norwegians are predominantly Germanic, although in the far north there are communities of Sami (Lapps) who came to the area more than 10,000 years ago (according to secular archeology), probably from central Asia. In recent years, Norway has become home to increasing numbers of immigrants, foreign workers, and asylum-seekers from various parts of the world. Immigrants now total over 300,000; some have obtained Norwegian citizenship.

More than 10% of Norway's residents have foreign origins. They include many asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Eritrea. Their status is increasingly a political issue. Siv Jensen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party, demands tighter restrictions on immigration, claiming Norway is being "Islamified".

===Culture===
Although the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the state church, Norway has complete religious freedom. Education is free through the university level and is compulsory from ages 6 to 16. At least 12 months of military service and training are required of every eligible male. Norway's socialist health system includes free hospital care, physician's compensation, cash benefits during illness and pregnancy, and other medical and dental plans. There is a public pension system.

Norway is in the top rank of nations in the number of books printed per capita, even though Norwegian is one of the world's smallest language groups. Norway's most famous writer is the dramatist Henrik Ibsen. Artists Edvard Munch and Christian Krogh were Ibsen's contemporaries. Munch drew part of his inspiration from Europe and in turn exercised a strong influence on later European expressionists. Sculptor Gustav Vigeland has a permanent exhibition in the Vigeland Sculpture Park in Oslo. Musical development in Norway since [[Edvard Grieg]] has followed either native folk themes or international trends.

===Religion===
[[File:Church in Kvam Norway.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Church in Kvam.]]
The Lutheran religion replaced Catholicism around 1536.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church has been a state-funded and state-controlled church since 1660. It is led by 11 bishops who report to the government's ministry of church and cultural affairs. The king and at least one half of his ministers are required by law to belong to the established church. Lay councils are very active in parish life, especially among the fundamentalists of the south and west. As a result, the church has been able to support much social work and important missions in Africa and India. In relation to population, Norway has sent abroad the largest number of missionaries. The first woman minister was appointed in 1961. Although 88% of Norwegians belong to the Church of Norway, and 82% if babies are baptized in it, only 10% attend ten or more services a year.<ref> See [http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-norway/church_religion_and_belief/ "Church, Religion and Belief"]</ref> During the 1970s and 1980s, a movement to sever the strong connection between the state and the Lutheran Church failed.<ref> Peder A. Eidberg, "Norwegian Free Churches and Religious Liberty: A History." ''Journal of Church and State'' 1995 37(4): 869-884. </ref>

Lutheranism remained the only religious option until the Dissenter Law of 1845 legalized free church congregations. Historians see this law as a restricted reform: Norwegians could leave the Lutheran Church only after they turned eighteen, and civil service jobs were still restricted to Lutherans. Thereafter, liberal groups such as the Norwegian Council of Dissenting Churches worked to end legal discrimination on the basis of religion. In 1969, religious restrictions on the hiring of public school teachers were finally lifted. Today Norwegians enjoy complete freedom of worship. By a law passed in 1969 the state provides financing for the officially registered dissenting churches. Dissenters include 44,000 Pentecostals; a Lutheran Free Church, with about 20,000 members; a Methodist Episcopal Church, with about 20,000 members; 12,000 Baptists; about 21,500 Roman Catholics, and over 76,000 Muslims, the fastest growing group. According to polls some 31-72% of Norwegians are either agnostics or atheists. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>
{{Clear}}

==Government==
The functions of the king are mainly ceremonial, but he has influence as the symbol of national unity. Although the 1814 constitution grants important executive powers to the king, these are almost always exercised by the Council of Ministers in the name of the king (King's Council). The Council of Ministers consists of a prime minister--chosen by the political parties represented in the Storting--and other ministers.

The 169 members of the Storting are elected from 19 fylker (counties) for 4-year terms according to a complicated system of proportional representation. After elections, the Storting divides into two chambers, the Odelsting and the Lagting, which meet separately or jointly depending on the legislative issue under consideration.

The special High Court of the Realm hears impeachment cases; the regular courts include the Supreme Court (17 permanent judges and a president), courts of appeal, city and county courts, the labor court, and conciliation councils. Judges attached to regular courts are appointed by the king in council after nomination by the Ministry of Justice.

Each fylke is headed by a governor appointed by the king in council, with one governor exercising authority in both Oslo and the adjacent county of Akershus.
[[File:Norway-map.gif|thumb|270px]]

===Politics===
Norway's left-leaning government narrowly defeated a splintered center-right opposition in the September 2009 elections. Prime Minister [[Jens Stoltenberg]]'s ruling [[Labor Party (Norway)|Labor Party]] government came under challenge by [[Siv Jensen]] and her right-wing populist [[Progress Party (Norway)|Progress Party]] (which has gained support by calling for lowering Norway's notoriously high taxes and tightening immigration rules), as well as [[Erna Solberg]] and her center-right [[Conservative Party (Norway)|Conservative Party]]. Debate centered on how to manage the Nordic welfare state's oil wealth.<ref>See Karl Ritter, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_eu/eu_norway_election "Norway election focused on oil wealth," ''AP'' Sept. 14, 2009] </ref>

Until the 1981 election, Norway had been governed by majority [[Labor Party (Norway)|Labor Party]] governments since 1935, except for three periods (1963, 1965-71, and 1972-73). The Labor Party lost its majority in the Storting in the 1981 elections. Since that time, minority and coalition governments have been the rule. The two conservative parties in, the old Conservative Party and the younger Progressive Party increased their electoral support from 23% in 1975 to 34% in the election of 1987. The electoral mobilization by these conservative parties was mainly based on an ideologically inspired rhetoric of reduced government spending and corresponding tax reductions.

From 1981 to 1997, governments alternated between Labor minority governments under [[Gro Harlem Brundtland]] and Conservative-led coalition governments under [[Kåre Willoch]] and [[Jan P. Syse]]. The first government coalition led by Christian Democrat [[Kjell Magne Bondevik]] came to power in 1997, but fell in March 2000 over the issue of proposed gas-fired power plants, opposed by Bondevik due to their impact on [[climate change]]. The Labor Party's [[Jens Stoltenberg]], a Brundtland protégé, took over in a minority Labor government but lost power in the September 2001 election when Labor posted its worse performance since World War I. Bondevik once again became Prime Minister, this time as head of a minority government with the Conservatives and Liberals in a coalition heavily dependent upon the right-populist Progress Party.

The September 2005 elections ended the Bondevik government, and the Labor party came back with its most substantial victory in years, securing 60 of the 169 seats in Parliament. While this election result once more made Labor the undisputed heavyweight in Norwegian politics, Stoltenberg, chastened by his previous stint as the head of a minority government, reached out to the far left Socialist Left party and agrarian Center party to form a coalition government that commanded a majority of seats in Parliament. The current government is the first majority government in Norway in over 20 years, but the governing coalition has had to bridge substantial policy differences to build this majority.

Norway, [[Iceland]] and [[Switzerland]] are the only countries in Western Europe that do not belong to the [[European Union]].

Norway is one of five European countries that permit [[same-sex marriage]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7978495.stm Sweden allows same sex marriage]</ref>

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
*King, [[Harald V of Norway|Harald V]]
*Prime Minister, [[Jens Stoltenberg]]
*Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre
*Minister of Defense, Anne-Grethe Strøm-Erichsen
*Ambassador to the United States, Wegger Christian Strømmen
*Ambassador to NATO, Kim Traavik
*Ambassador to the United Nations, Johan Ludvik Løvald
{{Clear}}

===Foreign Relations===
Norway supports international cooperation and the peaceful settlement of disputes, recognizing the need for maintaining a strong national defense through collective security. Accordingly, the cornerstones of Norwegian policy are active membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and support for the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Norway also pursues a policy of economic, social, and cultural cooperation with other Nordic countries--Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland--through the Nordic Council.

In addition to strengthening traditional ties with developed countries, Norway seeks to build friendly relations with developing countries and has undertaken humanitarian and development aid efforts with selected African and Asian nations. Norway also is dedicated to encouraging democracy, assisting refugees, and protecting human rights throughout the world.
===Military===
The ''Economist'' magazine Intelligence Unit used measures of military spending and actions and violent crime rates to find that Norway is the most peaceful country in the world.<ref>See [http://www.ppu.org.uk/newsx/news_013.html report]</ref>

Norway spends about 1.8% of GDP on defense, about the NATO average. Military spending has fallen from 7.4% of the national budget in 1990 to 4.8% in 2004.

The principle of universal military service has long been accepted by most Norwegians. All men between the ages of 19 and 45 must serve 12 months in the army or 15 months in the navy or air force. The army, based on five regional commands, has a peacetime strength of about 19,000 and is posted mainly in the north near Russia. A home defense force of some 85,000 is trained for special tasks in local areas. The navy has 5 frigates, 15 submarines, and numerous small craft for patrolling the coast.

The Royal Norwegian Air Force (Luftforsvaret) became an independent service in 1944. In peacetime, it has about 3,000 personnel, and in time of war, some 17,500. It has 10 squadrons that operate from seven air stations and fly a variety of aircraft and helicopters, including F-16 fighters. It also operates six missile batteries and 10 short-range point defense missile systems.

In 2009, 500 Norwegian soldiers serve under NATO command in Afghanistan.

==Economy==
Norway is one of the world's richest countries in per capita terms. It has an important stake in promoting a liberal environment for foreign trade. Its large shipping fleet is one of the most modern among maritime nations. Metals, pulp and paper products, chemicals, shipbuilding, and fishing are the most significant traditional industries.
[[Image:Dalen Telemarken Norway.jpg|thumb|340px|Dalen, Telemarken, Norway. Photochrom print, between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900.]]
Norway's emergence as a major oil and gas producer in the mid-1970s transformed the economy. Large sums of investment capital poured into the offshore oil sector, leading to greater increases in Norwegian production costs and wages than in the rest of western Europe up to the time of the global recovery of the mid-1980s. The influx of oil revenue also permitted Norway to expand an already extensive social welfare system. Norway has established a state Petroleum Fund that exceeded $132.6 billion as of December 2004. The fund primarily will be used to help finance government programs once oil and gas resources become depleted. Norway is currently enjoying large foreign trade surpluses thanks to high oil prices. Unemployment remains currently low (3%-4% range), and the prospects for economic growth are encouraging thanks to the government's stimulative fiscal policy and economic recovery in the United States and Europe.

Norway voted against joining the European Union (EU) in a 1994 referendum. With the exception of the agricultural and fisheries sectors, however, Norway enjoys free trade with the EU under the framework of the European Economic Area. This agreement aims to apply the four freedoms of the EU's internal market (goods, persons, services, and capital) to Norway. As a result, Norway normally adopts and implements most EU directives. Norwegian monetary policy is aimed at maintaining a stable exchange rate for the krone against European currencies, of which the euro is a key operating parameter. Norway is not a member of the EU's Economic and Monetary Union and does not have a fixed exchange rate. Its principal trading partners are in the EU; the United States ranks sixth.

===Energy Resources===
Norway has a highly-developed oil and natural gas sector. Norway's oil production peaked in 2001 at 3.42 million barrels per day (bbl/d) and has been steadily declining since, reaching 2.47 million bbl/d in 2008. Natural gas production, on the other hand, has been steadily increasing since 1993, reaching 3.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008. All of Norway's oil and natural gas fields are located subsea on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Most of the new discoveries being made are natural gas. The Norwegian government is committed to developing the frontier Barents Sea region as existing North Sea fields mature.<ref> For current statistics, see [http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=NO Energy Information Administration, "Norway Energy Profile" (2009)] </ref>

Offshore hydrocarbon deposits were discovered in the 1960s, and development began in the 1970s. Norway is now the world's third-largest gas exporter and provides much of western Europe's crude oil and gas requirements. In 2003, Norwegian oil and gas exports accounted for 56% of total merchandise exports. In addition, offshore exploration and production have stimulated onshore economic activities. Foreign companies, including many American ones, participate actively in the petroleum sector.

One issue that has hampered the development of oil and natural gas reserves in the northern Barents Sea area has been the lack of a defined maritime boundary between Norway and Russia. However, on June 5, 2009, Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom and Norwegian state-controlled oil company StatoilHydro signed a three-year Memorandum of Understanding to work together in exploring and developing their Arctic sea regions. According to a joint statement, the two companies will work together on development of the Shtokman field, some 345 miles from land in 1,148 feet of water. It holds estimated gas reserves of around 113 trillion cubic feet.

Hydropower provides nearly all of Norway's electricity, and all of the gas and most of the oil produced is exported.

==History==
===Pre-Viking===
Hunting tribes were displaced by farmers after 3000 B.C. By 400 AD the inhabitants had contacts with Gaul, used [[runic]] writing, and expanded their settlements. After 400 AD, migrations brought in new peoples from the south to "Northern Way", or Norway. The first local kingdoms were created to bolster local defenses. For example, the Ynglings, a branch of the first Swedish royal house, established one of the earliest kingdoms west of the Oslofjord.
===Vikings===

The [[Viking]] period (9th to 11th centuries) was one of national unification and expansion.

see [[Viking]]
[[File:Vikings.jpg|thumb|280px]]

About 900 AD Harald Fairhair established a large kingdom by winning, in alliance with the earl of Lade (Trøndelag) a victory over other local kings. Harald's victory caused disgruntled subordinate chieftains to join the growing Viking movement. The growth in population forced some Norwegians to spread inland on to poorer soils and others to seek their fortunes as raiders, traders, or settlers across the western sea. The Vikings proved to be superb sailors and ferocious warriors; their raids turned into landing operations and settlements.

The sparsely inhabited Scottish islands were settled first; the first recorded Viking raid on England came in 793 AD. In the following two centuries Norse Vikings plundered far and wide. Kingdoms were carved out in Ireland, Scotland, northeast England, and northern France, and the Faeroes, Iceland, and eventually Greenland were colonized. In addition to advanced ships, the Vikings had good iron tools and weapons and were expert wood-carvers. Overseas, the Vikings developed trade wherever they settled. In Norway, markets, the forerunners of towns that grew up in the 11th century, sprang up beside the fjords.

===Medieval Norway===
Inside Norway the Middle Ages were a time of political turmoil. Harald Fairhair's throne was fought over for nearly a century bloody civil wars among kings and earls, pagans and Christians, and between Norwegians and Danes. Olav II (reigned 1016-1028) briefly united Norway and introduced Christianity. He was killed in 1030 by rebel nobles who had allied themselves with Denmark. After his death Olav was hailed almost at once as a national saint; he was canonized in 1154. Trondheim cathedral was founded in his honor, and his family regained and kept the throne after a brief period of Danish rule (1028-1035).

English Christian missionaries had a major impact; their monasteries became the owners of large estates. The Viking traditions died out, surviving in the carvings on the new churches of dragons and other pagan symbols. Harald Hardraade (Hard Ruler) was the last Norwegian king to claim England (1066), but he was killed in England. In 1170 the papacy made Trondheim the seat of an archbishop, with five suffragan bishops in Norway and six in the western islands, Iceland, and Greenland. Norway became the ecclesiastical center for the widely dispersed Norse peoples.

The civil wars over control of the throne died out during the long reign of Haakon IV (1217-1263), and Norway entered upon the brief "age of greatness." Haakon reorganized the national government, with a royal council, regional governors, and judicial officers all appointed by the king. A national legal code was established in 1274. Iceland and Greenland accepted the king of Norway as ruler, and effective power was exerted in the Faeroes, Shetland, and Orkney in Scotland.<ref> The other Norse territories in Scotland were formally surrendered in 1266 to the Scottish king.</ref> Overseas trade flourished during this period, and Haakon IV, who usually resided in Bergen where the trade was centered, concluded his first commercial treaty with the English king.

The 13th century was the last period of early Norwegian independence and greatness. During the 100 years from the reign of Haakon IV to that of Haakon V (1299-1319) the Norwegian sagas, the stories of Norway's past, were gathered. In Iceland, Snorri Sturluson wrote the "Heimskringla" and the "Younger Edda," and Sturla Thordsson, a nephew of Snorri, wrote the "Islendingasaga," the "Sturlingasaga," and the "Haakon Haakonssonsaga,'' which comprise the earliest masterpieces of Scandinavian literature.

===Union of Kalmar===
The Norwegian royal line died out in 1387, and the country entered a dark period under the control of Denmark. The Norwegian merchant class began to decline after 1250 when the German [[Hanseatic League]] (the mercantile organization of north German towns) established agents in Bergen, who supplied essential imports of Baltic grain in exchange for north Norway's traditional export of dried cod. The aristocracy collapsed during the Black Plague, which killed half the population in 1349. The resulting economic calamity destroyed most of the dairy farming, the dominant form of agriculture on most aristocratic estates. Thus Norway was already the weakest Scandinavian kingdom when the extinction of the royal lines in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark led to the union of the three countries (1397) under the Union of Kalmar. Norway lost its king and court and aristocracy, its commerce declined; it stopped producing great literature. Outsiders, mostly Danish-speaking Danes, were in control; Norwegian tradition claims the harshness of the Danish misrule created a greater unity among Norwegians.

The population grew slowly, from 500,000 in 1660 to 900,000 in 1814--the vast majority were poor and eked out a living as farmers and/or fishermen.

===19th Century===
In 1814, as a result of the Napoleonic wars, Norway was separated from [[Denmark]] and combined with [[Sweden]]. Norway at last had its own government--the Storthing or parliament was now comprised of Norwegians--with a Swedish viceroy representing the king of Sweden. The king tried to stop the growing independence of the Storthing but failed; by the 1830s the peasants comprised half the Storthing and they demanded strict economy and stripped the remaining nobles (mostly Danes) of their aristocratic titles and pretensions.

As nationalism emerged across Europe it appeared as well in Norway; the "Young Norway" movement romanticized the peasants and ridiculed the king. An upper class party of merchants also emerged--both parties were led by poets who celebrated the Norwegian language. The new king Oscar I (reigned 1844-57) allowed a separate Norwegian flag for merchant ships, which increasingly became important on the Atlantic. [[Whaling]] became a major industry, as the economy began to improve in the 1840s. The first railway opened, and steamships provided easy travel along the long coastline.

The threat of socialism emerged when The Thranittforeningene (Workers' Associations), started by socialist Marcus Thrane, formed Norway's first modern mass political movement. At its peak in 1849-50 the Thranites included both propertied and unpropertied and urban and rural Norwegians brought together by anxieties over maintaining their economic position in a period marked by international economic depression and the beginnings of Norway's transition to a modern society.

By the 1880s the peasants could sell their holdings and buy passages to America. About a fourth of the families, specially the younger ones, did so, and headed to Minnesota and neighboring states. About one in four returned to Norway, but their tales of life in the New World only stimulated more emigration.

The viceroy system was dropped and Norway had its own prime minister from 1873--albeit one chosen by the king. Norway celebrated its 1000th anniversary as a nation as serious political tensions with the king continued throughout the latter part of the 19th century. By the 1890s the Norwegians demanded a role in diplomacy, which the Swedes refused to allow. The union with Sweden persisted until 1905, when Norway demanded and received complete independence, and could now have its own king and diplomats.

All men were given the vote in 1898, and most women in 1907.

===20th century===
[[File:Oslo Christian Frederiks plass Norway.JPG|thumb|280px|Oslo, Christian Frederiks plass.]]
The Norwegian Government offered the throne of Norway to Danish Prince Carl in 1905. After a plebiscite approving the establishment of a monarchy, the Parliament unanimously elected him king. He took the name of Haakon VII, after the kings of independent Norway.

Before 1900 Norway was one of the poorest countries in Europe, with an economy focused on farming, forestry, and fishing. Norway's harsh environment--the high latitudes and short growing seasons, the poor soils, the excessive precipitation, and the cool summers--have made farming difficult. Today only 3% of the land is used for farming; the main products are forage grains and dairy products. About one of every four Norwegian families cultivates its own garden plot.

In the 20th century new industries based on cheap water power and raw materials harvested from Norway's farms, forests, seas, and mines replaced agriculture as the prime employer. The very large merchant fleet became a major contributor to the nation's wealth. After 1970 vast offshore oil resources made the country rich.
{{Clear}}

===World War II===
Norway tried and failed to be neutral during [[World War I]], but was invaded by the Germans in 1940<ref> François Kersaudy, ''Norway 1940'' (1991). 272 pp.</ref> and ruled by traitors, led by Quisling. The king and the government escaped to Britain in 1940, serving as symbolic leader of a nation under occupation by the Nazis. In 1940-45, sharp jokes about the occupiers circulated widely among Norwegians. The jokes contained contempt for the oppressors, ridicule of Nazi ideology, depictions of the cruelty of Nazi methods, and mockery of the inflated self-image of the Germans. All of the jokes served to boost morale, educate Norwegians about the occupation, and encourage a sense of solidarity.<ref> Kathleen Stokker, "Heil Hitler - God Save the King: Jokes and the Norwegian Resistance 1940-1945." ''Western Folklore'' 1991 50(2): 171-190. </ref>

===Postwar===
King Haakon returned in triumph in 1945. He died in 1957 and was succeeded by his son, Olav V, who died in January 1991. Upon Olav's death, his son Harald was crowned as King Harald V.
====Welfare state====
[[File:Harbour of Hamnoy Norway.jpg|thumb|300px|Harbour of Hamnøy.]]
The Scandinavian countries first established strong welfare states in the 1920s and 1930s. Benefits for the middle as well as lower classes became lavish, and Social Democrats raised income taxes until they became the world's highest. Despite this, Norway (and the rest of Scandinavia) retained private enterprise. Unlike France, England, and Germany, Scandinavian states owned and ran very few companies other than public utilities and railroads. Across Scandinavia the major sompanies like Saab, Ericsson, Nokia, and Volvo have always belonged to stockholders.

The Norwegian Labor Party won a majority in 1945, a time that required cooperation among Norwegian political parties for national reconstruction after the German occupation. Labor Party leaders were willing to recognize a role for privately owned business and for market forces in economic planning both on pragmatic grounds and because party leaders in exile in London during the war had seen successful cooperation between British industry and government. The Labor Party acknowledged that private ownership was more effective than state management in improving efficiency. The state's role expanded in the direction of redistributing, rather than producing, national wealth. Although the Labor Party moved toward democratic socialism, the tension between broader participation, particularly by workers in management, and effective planning persisted into the 1970s.<ref> Trond Bergh, "Pragmatic and Democratic Socialism: Ideological and Political Trends in the Norwegian Labour Party during the 1940s and 1950s." ''Scandinavian Journal of History'' 1991 16 (3): 205-213. </Ref>

In 1945, all Norwegian political parties right and left agreed that extensive government economic controls would be needed for a period of postwar reconstruction. The Labor government's objectives were economic growth through expansion of the manufacturing sector and modernization. When government controls potentially interfered with the effort to increase industrial exports, the latter got priority. Similarly, although the private sector resisted attempts to institutionalize state corporatism, the government's flexibility led to increased cooperation between the government and manufacturing industries. The Labor Party and its opponents disagreed not on the need for modernization in postwar Norway but on the direction to take to the common goal.<ref> Even Lange, and Helge Pharo, "Planning and Economic Policy in Norway, 1945-1960" ''Scandinavian Journal af History'' 1991 16 (3): 215-228</ref>

In Norway (and the rest of Scandinavia) marginal tax rates on wages, and the value added taxes (which are assessed like sales taxes) remain the highest in the world. But capital gains taxes and real estate assessments are low or non-existent. The region is ahead of the United States in a few areas of market reforms: All four countries have school vouchers and allow individual control over some social security taxes.<ref> Eli Lehrer, "Scandinavia's Surprising Turn from Socialism." ''The American Enterprise'' v. 13 #8 Dec. 2002. pp 42+ online at [[Questia]]</ref>

====Cold War====
The wartime horrors led Norwegians to reject neutrality in the [[Cold War]], and they turned instead to collective security in alliance with the United States. Norway was one of the signers of the NATO Treaty in 1949 and was a founding member of the [[United Nations]] in 1945. Indeed, the first UN General Secretary, Trygve Lie, was a Norwegian. Under the terms of the will of Alfred Nobel, the Storting (Parliament) elects the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee who award the [[Nobel Peace Prize]] to champions of peace.

==Internet==
According to Alexa traffic statistics, Conservapedia enjoys its second highest national traffic rank in Norway.[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservapedia.com%2F]

==Further reading==
===Guides===
* ''Norway'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Snorre Evensberget (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Norway-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Evensberget/dp/078949339X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960453&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''Norway'' (Country Guide) by Anthony Ham (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Norway-Country-Guide-Anthony-Ham/dp/1741045797/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960453&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* ''Insight Guide Norway'' by Simon Ryder and Cameron Duffy (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Insight-Guide-Norway-Guides/dp/9812587128/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960453&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Norway'' by Darwin Porter (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Norway-Complete-Darwin-Porter/dp/0470432136/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960453&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* ''Norway - Culture Smart!: the essential guide to customs & culture'' by Linda March (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Norway-Culture-essential-customs-culture/dp/1857333314/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960453&sr=1-11 excerpt and text search]

===History===
====Surveys====
* Bain, Robert Nisbet. ''Scandinavia; a Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden from 1513 to 1900'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Scandinavia-Political-History-Denmark-Norway/dp/0543939006/ref=sr_1_44?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252960971&sr=1-44 excerpt and text search]
* Derry, Thomas Kingston. ''A History of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.'' (1979). 447 pp.; standard scholarly history
* Dreyer, Grøndahl , et al. ''A History of Norway: From the Ice Age to the Age of Petroleum'' (1999) standard scholarly history
* Nordstrom, Byron J. ''Scandinavia since 1500'' (2000), standard scholarly history [http://www.questia.com/read/111772948?title=Scandinavia%20since%201500 online edition]
* Sjovik, Jan. ''Historical Dictionary of Norway'' (2008), standard reference book

====Specialized====
* Archer, Clive. '' Norway outside the European Union: Norway and European Integration from 1994 to 2004'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Norway-outside-European-Union-Integration/dp/0415282799/ref=sr_1_58?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252961077&sr=1-58 excerpt and text search]
* Berdal, Mats R. ''The United States, Norway and the Cold War, 1954-60.'' (1997). 268pp
* Beyer, Harald. ''A History of Norwegian Literature'' (1956) [http://www.questia.com/read/23498525?title=A%20History%20of%20Norwegian%20Literature online edition]
* Cole, Wayne S. ''Norway and the United States, 1905-1955: Two Democracies in Peace and War.'' (1989). 221 pp.
* Derry, Thomas Kingston. ''Haakon VII of Norway: The Man and the Monarch'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/read/77549523?title=Haakon%20VII%20of%20Norway%3a%20The%20Man%20and%20the%20Monarch online edition]
* Einhorn. Eric S., and John Logue. ''Modern Welfare States: Scandinavian Politics and Policy in the Global Age'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/113176873?title=Modern%20Welfare%20States%3a%20%20Scandinavian%20Politics%20and%20Policy%20in%20the%20Global%20Age online edition]
* Gjelsvik, Tore. ''Norwegian Resistance, 1940-1945.'' (1979). 224 pp.
* Gran, Thorvald. ''The State in the Modernization Process: The Case of Norway, 1850-1970.'' Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal, 1994. 415 pp.
* Greve, Tim. ''Haakon VII of Norway: The Man and the Monarch.'' (1983). 212 pp.; he reigned 1905-57.
* Haywood, John. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Historical-Atlas-Vikings-Hist/dp/0140513280/ref=pd_sim_dbs_b_2 excerpt and text search]
* Hovde, B. J. ''The Scandinavian Countries, 1720-1865: The Rise of the Middle Classes'' (1948) [http://www.questia.com/read/23307473?title=The%20Scandinavian%20Countries%2c%201720-1865%3a%20The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Middle%20Classes%20-%20Vol.%201 online edition]
* Lowell, Briant Lindsay. ''Scandinavian Exodus: Demography and Social Development of 19th-Century Rural Communities.'' (1987). 262 pp.
* Naess, Harald S., ed. ''A History of Norwegian Literature.'' (1993). 435 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/9898528?title=A%20History%20of%20Norwegian%20Literature online edition]
* Petrow, Richard. ''The Bitter Years: The Invasion and Occupation of Denmark and Norway, April 1940-May 1945'' (1974)
* Rommetvedt, Hilmar. ''The Rise of the Norwegian Parliament'' (2003), recent history [http://www.questia.com/read/108508058?title=The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Norwegian%20Parliament online edition]
* Royal Institute of International Affairs. ''The Scandinavian States and Finland: A Political and Economic Survey'' (1951) [http://www.questia.com/read/57951997?title=The%20Scandinavian%20States%20and%20Finland%3a%20%20A%20Political%20and%20Economic%20Survey%20%281951%29 online edition]
* Rust, Val D. ''The Democratic Tradition and the Evolution of Schooling in Norway.'' (1989). 333 pp.

==External links==
* [http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-norway/ "Living and Working in Norway"], useful coverage of many topics
* [http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2741143.ece search Oslo newspaper stories]

== References ==
<references/>
<small>
{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3421.htm]</small>

[[Category:Norway]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Political Parties in Norway]]

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2011-05-28T16:50:42Z

Kantarella: /* Application To Delete the Entire Article */

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of [[liberal style]]. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

==Censorship Complaint==

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:You hit the nail on the head: ''"Evolutionists say..."'' Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but ''saying'' it happened is far different from ''proving'' it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
:No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::::: 150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)

::::::: Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that ''from an evolutionary point of view'' there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)

:::::::: I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance. I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::The whale, a mammal, has many extraordinary characteristics that are not found in any other creatures. Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since. It is a counterexample to the [[theory of evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::You didn't look at any of those links that I provided at the top of the thread, did you? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:09, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I looked at those links, and again it's evolutionists ''saying'' it happened; they're not ''proving'' it happened. That is a situation that you, CecilQ, are choosing to ignore completely. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::I looked at those links also. The first one called it an "unfinished story," the second one is a link to Wikipedia, the third is a YouTube video, and so on. Those links are a far cry from openminded, rigorous science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::@Karajou: I say again: I am not saying that evolution ought to be accepted. This thread is about a specific alleged example of deliberate ignorance. I am trying to elicit exactly what it is about this particular example that smacks of deliberate ignorance.
:::::::::::::::@Aschafly: If you had read the links when you posted your comment of 22 March then I cannot understand how you could have written: "Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since". In all seriousness, are you suggesting that the black bear theory is the most plausible theory yet? Clearly, looking at those links, a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested. And isn't the fact that some evolutionists refer to it as an "unfinished story" indicative of open enquiring minds rather than deliberate ignorance? Working from within the evolutionary paradigm, just what is it about the proposed evolutionary path that is indicative of deliberate ignorance. I think it would be appropriate at this stage if you could provide specific details. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:52, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Darwin said black bears; then it changed to "dog-like" carnivores [http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/ancientwhales.htm]; now the latest scenario (read "excuse") is deer [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm]. Bambi meets Flipper? In this particular evo-story - and all of evolution in general - these "educated" men will come with any excuse, any scenario, any situation...anything under the sun, ''except'' Genesis, Chapter 1. They cannot tolerate the fact that there is a God who created everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... I think you'll find that the "dog-like" creatures and the "deer-like" creatures both exist in the current proposed evolutionary pathway. Pakicetus is described in your first article as having "dog-like legs" and Indohyus is described in your second article as being "deer-like". According to current evolutionary theory they are both related to whales (edit - although, in the case of Indohyus the relationship appears less certain). It is not as if there has been a movement from bears to dogs to deer (which appears to be what you are suggesting in your post). Rather, it is as I have described it above: "a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested".

Now, both you and I know that the Bible is 100% true and correct and that Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour. We also agree that evolution cannot possibly be right and that the Great Flood definitely definitely happened. However, this is an article on ''deliberate'' ignorance. The mere fact that we do not agree with someone's point of view does not mean that they are being deliberately ignorant. People can legitimately hold opposing views without deliberate ignorance being the necessary cause. For this whale item to be included in this article there really needs to be a more considered criticism than "Bambi meets Flipper". Can you point to any reference that indicates that deliberate ignorance is at work in relation to the suggested evolutionary pathway for whales? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 00:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:Cecil, the suggested evolutionary pathways ignore many unique features and characteristics of whales. Darwin lacked a plausible explanation ''because there is none within his theory''. Rather than address this, evolutionists ignore it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::Specifically what unique features and characteristics? Exactly what are they ignoring? And why do you say they are acting with ''deliberate'' ignorance? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Application To Delete the Entire Article ==

I think this entire article needs to be removed completely. It has no academic or intellectual value and is clearly put on the site for the purpose of targeting a specific group of people. It has almost no sources and gives no information. It does not belong on an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:40, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

:It has value and does provide information. Deliberate ignorance is something that could even be studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

::All this article does is call people the author doesnt like names. I suspect if I started posting other examples of deliberate ignorance, I'd get in trouble unless they were of people the author disliked. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== Un-American content ==

I feel that this should be edited:
<blockquote>

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

</blockquote>

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god".

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2011-05-28T16:45:52Z

Kantarella:

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of [[liberal style]]. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

==Censorship Complaint==

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:You hit the nail on the head: ''"Evolutionists say..."'' Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but ''saying'' it happened is far different from ''proving'' it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
:No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::::: 150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)

::::::: Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that ''from an evolutionary point of view'' there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)

:::::::: I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance. I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::The whale, a mammal, has many extraordinary characteristics that are not found in any other creatures. Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since. It is a counterexample to the [[theory of evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::You didn't look at any of those links that I provided at the top of the thread, did you? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:09, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I looked at those links, and again it's evolutionists ''saying'' it happened; they're not ''proving'' it happened. That is a situation that you, CecilQ, are choosing to ignore completely. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::I looked at those links also. The first one called it an "unfinished story," the second one is a link to Wikipedia, the third is a YouTube video, and so on. Those links are a far cry from openminded, rigorous science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::@Karajou: I say again: I am not saying that evolution ought to be accepted. This thread is about a specific alleged example of deliberate ignorance. I am trying to elicit exactly what it is about this particular example that smacks of deliberate ignorance.
:::::::::::::::@Aschafly: If you had read the links when you posted your comment of 22 March then I cannot understand how you could have written: "Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since". In all seriousness, are you suggesting that the black bear theory is the most plausible theory yet? Clearly, looking at those links, a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested. And isn't the fact that some evolutionists refer to it as an "unfinished story" indicative of open enquiring minds rather than deliberate ignorance? Working from within the evolutionary paradigm, just what is it about the proposed evolutionary path that is indicative of deliberate ignorance. I think it would be appropriate at this stage if you could provide specific details. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:52, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Darwin said black bears; then it changed to "dog-like" carnivores [http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/ancientwhales.htm]; now the latest scenario (read "excuse") is deer [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm]. Bambi meets Flipper? In this particular evo-story - and all of evolution in general - these "educated" men will come with any excuse, any scenario, any situation...anything under the sun, ''except'' Genesis, Chapter 1. They cannot tolerate the fact that there is a God who created everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... I think you'll find that the "dog-like" creatures and the "deer-like" creatures both exist in the current proposed evolutionary pathway. Pakicetus is described in your first article as having "dog-like legs" and Indohyus is described in your second article as being "deer-like". According to current evolutionary theory they are both related to whales (edit - although, in the case of Indohyus the relationship appears less certain). It is not as if there has been a movement from bears to dogs to deer (which appears to be what you are suggesting in your post). Rather, it is as I have described it above: "a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested".

Now, both you and I know that the Bible is 100% true and correct and that Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour. We also agree that evolution cannot possibly be right and that the Great Flood definitely definitely happened. However, this is an article on ''deliberate'' ignorance. The mere fact that we do not agree with someone's point of view does not mean that they are being deliberately ignorant. People can legitimately hold opposing views without deliberate ignorance being the necessary cause. For this whale item to be included in this article there really needs to be a more considered criticism than "Bambi meets Flipper". Can you point to any reference that indicates that deliberate ignorance is at work in relation to the suggested evolutionary pathway for whales? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 00:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:Cecil, the suggested evolutionary pathways ignore many unique features and characteristics of whales. Darwin lacked a plausible explanation ''because there is none within his theory''. Rather than address this, evolutionists ignore it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::Specifically what unique features and characteristics? Exactly what are they ignoring? And why do you say they are acting with ''deliberate'' ignorance? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Application To Delete the Entire Article ==

I think this entire article needs to be removed completely. It has no academic or intellectual value and is clearly put on the site for the purpose of targeting a specific group of people. It has almost no sources and gives no information. It does not belong on an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:40, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

:It has value and does provide information. Deliberate ignorance is something that could even be studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

::All this article does is call people the author doesnt like names. I suspect if I started posting other examples of deliberate ignorance, I'd get in trouble unless they were of people the author disliked. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

I feel that this should be edited:
<blockquote>

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

</blockquote>

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god".