Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Elementary proof

2008-07-13T18:50:12Z

Koalitis: Accuracy edit

An '''elementary proof''' or '''elementary technique''' in mathematics is a [[proof]] that uses only [[real numbers]] or [[real analysis]] rather than the use of [[complex analysis]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref> Elementary proofs cannot be broken down into smaller proofs of the same proposition.

The [[Prime Number Theorem]] has long been proven using complex analysis ([[Riemann Zeta function]]), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the [[Fields Medal]]. In contrast, [[Andrew Wiles]]' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] did not use elementary techniques and he did not receive the Fields Medal for his work but rather an honorary silver plate from the [[International Mathematical Union]].<ref>http://www.mathunion.org/medals/Fields/Prizewinners.html</ref> (However, it can be concluded that Wiles' use of "non-elementary" techniques was not the reason he was not given the Fields Medal: Wiles was 41 years old when he proved Fermat's Last Theorem and was therefore ineligible for the Fields Medal due to his age. The Fields Medal is awarded only to mathematicians no older than 40.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q3/0827-wiles.html</ref>)

===Sources===

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-17T01:58:37Z

Koalitis: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

Talk:Albert Einstein

2007-03-13T21:41:33Z

Koalitis:

This article is largely incorrect. Gravitons aren't predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. GPS satellites are 1) Useful and 2) Built with control systems that make relativistic corrections to compensate for the curvature of space caused by the earth. Predictions made by relativity which have been verified include: Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Spatial Twisting by Rotating Bodies, Extreme Time Distortions Near Black Holes, and Time Dilation by Spatial Curvature.

Gravitational Interferometers are also built to measure the gravity waves that are predicted by the general theory. They also have the inconvenient property of, you know, working.

:Along those lines, I don't know whether particle accelerators are considered "useful" but if built according to Newtonian physics I don't think any of them built since about the 1940s would have worked. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for correcting the urban legend. Even most Christians concede Einstein's beliefs resembled a form of Deism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

==Einstein's fame==
Someone reverted my edits without comment. My version was:
: Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for being regarded as a great genius. He is perhaps best known for work on the theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], ...

I say this because Einstein's fame with the general public is not really for his "several great works of theoretical physics". Hardly anyone even knows what those were. But everybody knows Einstein as a great genius.

Also, the phrase "his theories" is inaccurate. Einstein did well-known work on relativity, but it wasn't Einstein's theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I didn't do the reversion, and I only agree with half of the reversion. Special Relativity was not "his [Einstein's] theory", so that should not have been reverted.

:: But I do agree with reverting the claim that Einstein was "regarded as a great genius." The media promotes people as geniuses for a variety of their own reasons, and it often has no basis in fact. [[Henry Kissinger]] is also regarded as a genius. Is he? No. Robert McNamara was regarded as a genius. Was he? No. The statement about what people are led to think is meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether you think that Einstein was a genius or not, it is a fact that he is popularly regarded as a great genius. Perhaps as much as anyone in history. Go ask some random person to name a great genius, and you are apt to get the name Einstein. Saying that Einstein is regarded as a great genius is like saying that Babe Ruth is regarded as a great baseball player.
::: Maybe you'd like to add a later paragraph on the limits to Einstein's genius. Eg, he is often quoted on subjects where he had no expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree that many people, who know nothing about what Einstein did, regard him as a great genius. I don't dispute the truth of that claim. I do dispute the significance of it. An encyclopedia or other intelligent resource does not report on what most (ignorant) people think. Most people may think there is life on Mars. Should an entry about Mars begin with, "Most people think there is life on Mars"? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::: But Andrew you thought that it was relevant enough what fraction of the US population rejected evolution?

:::::: JoshuaZ has a good point. I would also say that biographies of Kissinger and McNamara should say that they were popularly regarded as being extremely smart. Even if you don't think that they were really so smart, you need to know that they were regarded as smart if you want to understand stuff that was written about them. So yes, what people think matters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I agree. It goes beyond Kissinger and McNamara, because Einstein has the status of being the popular exemplar of "a genius." There are a number of questions to which everybody knows "the answer" even though the questions are silly and so are the answers. Do this test. Answer the following questions quickly in your head and see if you don't immediately know what the "right" answers are... even if you disagree with them.

::::::: Who's the greatest composer? What is the greatest painting? Who's the greatest playwright? Who's the greatest American inventor?<ref>Beethoven. The Mona Lisa. Shakespeare. Edison. Mozart is gaining on Beethoven, but I think Beethoven is still ahead. But you definitely lose points for "The Night Watch," George Bernard Shaw, or Tesla!</ref>
::::::::OK, The first person I thought of on each question was: Mozart, Mona Lisa, Shakespear, Edison. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Mona Lisa was a painter?
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 18:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: In the same way, Einstein is "the brand name," the universal popular answer to the question "who was the greatest 'genius'" or "who was the most intelligent person." Arguably others might have been greater, but they didn't get the PR. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I make any wiki-type or style mistakes here, I'm a complete newb at this, and I'll learn more as I go.
I wanted to make a comment regarding the question his genius, I think his fame is incontrovertible.

Not many who understand even a little about the circumstances and the problem-space would argue as to whether or not Isaac Newton was a genius. I think all agree he was.

However any peer-review commentary in the literature that addresses this question of Einsteins abilities that I've ever seen qualifies the Tensor Calculus that he personally invented to solve the space-time theorems of General Relativity as the most fiercely difficult mathematics in existence--before or since.

I would consider that pretty high praise coming from the likes of Hawking, Penrose, et al. Just my $.02.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 03:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: No, Einstein did not invent the Tensor Calculus. It was Marcel Grossman who gave Einstein the idea of applying tensor calculus to relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==re:Cosmological Constant ne: Dark Energy==
The term was readopted in 1998 after the observations of accelerating expansion. It has since been dropped outside of popular press.
BTW, can someone point out to me how to correctly create references as footnotes. I'm new to wiki editing, and can't seem to pull it off properly. thx.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 13:50, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Criticism==
I don't like some of the recent additions. Why talk about views that Einstein "seemed" to hold? Did he or didn't he? Einstein wrote a great deal, and there is no reason to speculate about his politics. Either cite something with his political views, or ignore it.
Why does it say "though he held dual U.S. and Swiss citizenships"? Isn't that just what you would expect from someone who believed in World Government?
The next paragraph contradicts itself. It says, "he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project", and then it describes the crucial role that Einstein played. Yes, he did have something to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I apologize for my writing gaucheries. I was merely attempting to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. I will re-word to be more affirmative on the facts. In fact, Einstein's minimal encouragement to FDR played very little role in the actual outcome of the Administrations decisions regarding the Manhattan Project, and was certainly not crucial. It had almost no affect at first. The choice to devise and move ahead with the Atom Bomb plans were made as a result of intelligence efforts on the part of the Allies during WWII. I will acknowledge your point about citizenship. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

This content page is an embarrassment to Conservapedia. It's filled with opinions, unjustified claims, self-contradictions, misleading statements and liberal bias. Any student reading this content page is going to misled and confused. This is the kind of stuff that permeates Wikipedia. Users who like this stuff can enter it on Wikipedia at any time. Actually, I don't think even Wikipedia's entry about Einstein is this substandard. A rewrite is essential here. Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::With all due respect sir, I do not find the flaws in this article that you mentioned. Particularly concerning a liberal bias, there certainly is no trace of that in this writer. Quite the contrary. Accurately reporting the actual facts *without* the liberal spin so typical in today's media is one of my primary goals.

::I am not afraid of the truth. Whether it comes from the Bible, or from Creation. They are both the handiwork of God, and there can be *no* variance between them. In the course of human endeavor, if we uncover fuller knowledge of that handiwork, it's in our best interest to understand it. Jesus Christ is Lord of all Creation, and the more we know about science the plainer that truth will become to the whole world. Proverbs 4:7 says, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." I hope you will understand my heart in this. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Ecclesiastes 1:18 says, "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." --[[User:Koalitis|Koalitis]]

Not to mention the conservative bias :P --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 18:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Notes==
<references/>

Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-13T21:31:32Z

Koalitis: /* Trivia */

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a conservative American radio talk show host.

Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything liberal. He is often at odds with liberal Al Franken<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. Limbaugh's vitriolic style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.

Limbaugh underwent a scandal several years ago when his housekeeper was caught purchasing prescription medications, and it was revealed that Limbaugh was addicted to prescription drugs. He has since been rehabilitated.

Another scandal occured when Limbaugh made a joke in which he allegedly referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog". Chelsea was thirteen at the time. Limbaugh, however denied that he was talking about Chelsea, stating that he was not making a joke, and Chelsea's picture was accidentally put up on the screen<ref>MotherJones: [http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html "Lyin' Bully"]</ref>.

Limbaugh has also been criticized for his comments regarding Michael J. Fox's participation in Claire McCaskill's 2006 senate campaign in Missouri. In his radio broadcast, Limbaugh criticized a campaign commercial Fox filmed in support of McCaskill's position on stem cell research. Limbaugh accused Fox of being off his medication in order to generate sympathy. In the commercial, Fox is visibly swaying and moving in sudden, jerky movements which are the symptom of Parkinson's Disease, and the reason the acclaimed actor quit the hit show [[Spin City]].<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2006-10-24-limbaugh-fox_x.htm], USA Today</ref>

==Trivia==
*He is deaf in his left ear.
*He has six toes on his left foot.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-13T21:31:17Z

Koalitis: Denounced as a Witch?

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-13T21:28:34Z

Koalitis:

Bill O'Reilly

2007-03-13T21:27:57Z

Koalitis: Weasel word. "Purports to play" -> "plays." Colbert certainly is over the top, and certainly parodies O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly is a [[conservative]] [[pundit]] and host of the show ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]'' on the [[Fox network]]. He has acknowledged the reality of human-created global warming, and supports civil unions for ''all'' couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual. On Comedy Central's ''The Colbert Report'', Stephen Colbert plays an over-the-top parody of the conservative pundits archetyped by O'Reilly.