Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-27T16:59:12Z

PerpetualAngst:

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Evolution Is False ==

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

The Daily Show

2007-06-27T16:34:22Z

PerpetualAngst: /* External Links */

The Daily Show is an [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won multiple awards<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Stewart often distorts video clips, sound bites, and news stories in order to make [[politicians]] look silly, often making it seem as though politicians have contradicted themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous out of context. <ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref>

== Correspondents ==

The comedians show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true living [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true living God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml The official ''Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

The Daily Show

2007-06-27T16:33:55Z

PerpetualAngst: /* External Links */

The Daily Show is an [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won multiple awards<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Stewart often distorts video clips, sound bites, and news stories in order to make [[politicians]] look silly, often making it seem as though politicians have contradicted themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous out of context. <ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref>

== Correspondents ==

The comedians show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true living [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true living God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml/ The official ''Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T23:46:16Z

PerpetualAngst:

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

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

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

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

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

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

== Evolution Is False ==

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

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T12:18:14Z

PerpetualAngst:

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T12:16:51Z

PerpetualAngst:

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T03:13:36Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T02:19:22Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

User talk:Anagramer

2007-06-26T01:22:12Z

PerpetualAngst: New page: Vacancies dusk ropes: Cupcake sins savored

Vacancies dusk ropes: Cupcake sins savored

The Daily Show

2007-06-26T00:47:26Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Correspondents */

The Daily Show is an [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won multiple awards<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Stewart often distorts video clips, sound bites, and news stories in order to make [[politicians]] look silly, often making it seem as though politicians have contradicted themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous out of context. <ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref>

== Correspondents ==

The comedians show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true living [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true living God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml/ The official ''Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-26T00:38:03Z

PerpetualAngst:

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-06-24T04:59:52Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Liberal smear job */

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou

I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-06-24T04:59:15Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Disproportionate? */

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou
==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-24T02:51:42Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-24T02:46:37Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Further reading */

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

== Falsifiability ==
''Main article: [[Falsifiability]]''

[[Falsifiability]] is a commonly used criterion to determine whether a particular proposition is [[science|scientific]] or non-scientific. Essentially, a proposition is considered "scientific" if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment, but no experiment has proven it false.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Since there is no way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), then it is not ''scientific'' to claim that the unicorn is there.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be. Therefore, there is no ''scientific'' basis for making the proposition.

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

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."
* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of natural selection, and seeing if it alters over time. Creationists do no dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.
* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims such as "humans and apes spring from a common ancestor," then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim. According to the criterion of falsifiability, therefore, the assertion is not scientific.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the genepool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Evolutionists typically respond along the lines of proposing a potential line of development (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation). Therefore, some have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable.

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

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

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

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

=== Evolutionists acknowledging that evolution is not falsifiable ===

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

Although supporting evolution, Popper himself said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.}}

Popper, trying to distance himself from creationists, later tried to retract the claim. However, he is not the only one to have made similar claims.

Birch and Ehrlich previously wrote in ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.}}

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

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ''29 Evidences'' (and Potential Falsifications) ''for Macroevolution'']

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

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

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

Illegal immigration

2007-06-24T02:30:56Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

{{stub}}
'''Illegal immigration''' is when people without legal permission from a country cross the border and proceed to dwell there.

This has become a major issue in the [[United States]], because of foreigners living in the U.S. illegaly. Many illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and but still use services, such as health care and schools. However, many are afraid to use available services, such as domestic violence shelters, out of fear of deportation. Many illegals cannot speak English. Illegal immigrations is defended, saying that they are simply coming to find work and are a valuable part of the US labor force. Some come illegally to escape political oppression, as legal channels are not open to them.<ref>http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html immigration Usa</ref><ref>www.uscis.gov Immigration and Naturalization Services</ref><ref>www.dhs.gov Department of Homeland Security</ref>

Mexico is the source of the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the United States, who cross the border mostly through the desert southwest or less often by swimming across the Rio Grande. The United States receives constant criticism from the Mexican government for its efforts to curb illegal immigration. Ironically, one of Mexico's harshest criticisms was a plan by the United States to make illegal immigration a felony offense, which would impose harsher penalties on illegal Mexican immigrants. Mexico's own laws make illegal immigration a felony offense in that country.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1602610/posts][http://www.vdare.com/awall/060518_memo.htm]

As the Bible exhorts people to be compassionate towards illegal immigrants (Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:34), and as more Americans are Christian than any other religion, many Americans feel compelled by their religion to show compassion and caring for illegal immigrants, many of whom are trying to escape tyranny or poverty in their homelands.
== References ==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Xenophobia]]

[[Category:Politics]]

Illegal Immigration

2007-06-24T02:30:18Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

Illegal immigration is the act of immigrating to a country without the right to. The amount of people immigrating to the United States illegally is at epidemic levels.

Conservatives oppose illegal immigration because it allows for immigrants to fall between the cracks of society and they are thus more likely to commit crime or experience poverty. Illegal immigration is also damaging to countries because "illegals" will work illegally for below minimum wage, resulting in job loss for legal citizens.

==Statistics==
The estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 was 11.1 million.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0603/charts.immigration/frameset.exclude.html?eref=yahoo</ref>

$397 billion dollars have been paid to illegal immigrants through social services since 1996.<ref>http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134</ref>

The number of illegal aliens who are in prison is over 600,000.<ref>http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Xenophobia]]

Talk:Shania Twain

2007-06-24T02:15:29Z

PerpetualAngst: New page: Will somebody please add lots of pictures! PerpetualAngst

Will somebody please add lots of pictures! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

Scientific skepticism

2007-06-24T02:12:47Z

PerpetualAngst:

The [[National Academy of Science]] says,
*"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." [http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm]

Dana Joel Gattuso wrote:
*The field of science is all about inquiry. [[Intolerance]] for questioning or even engaging in debate suggests a fear that a theory or hypothesis is not up to the test. [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA553_GlobalWarming_Intolerance.html]

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Scientific consensus

2007-06-24T02:10:11Z

PerpetualAngst: /* External links */

'''Scientific consensus''' is a broadbased agreement about a scientific theory - regardless of whether there is any actual scientific evidence for or against it.

The best known modern examples of consensus science are that of biologists favoring Darwin's [[Theory of evolution]] and the [[environmentalist]] faith in [[Anthropogenic global warming]].

[[MIT]] Climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:
*"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions." [http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf]
*"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief." [http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm]

==See also==
*[[Climate alarmism]]

==External links==
*[http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Consensus-Corcoran.htm Climate consensus and the end of science] - Terence Corcoran
*[http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm Global Warming as a Religion]

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Pulsar

2007-06-24T02:04:55Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

A '''Pulsar''' is a [[neutron star]] whose magnetic axis is not aligned with the rotational axis. As a result, charged particles which accrete in a disk orbiting around the star's equator are ejected along the magnetic poles, sweep across the sky, and in a very few cases can be detected from Earth as regular pulses in the radio frequency spectrum. Very often these pulses are spaced only a few [[millisecond]]s apart, indicating the incredible rotational speed of the pulsar.

In 1974 University of Massechusetts astronomer Joseph Taylor and his graduate student Russell Hulse discovered two pulsars in a very eccentric orbit around each other with a period of 7.75 hours. Over the course of twenty years, their observations of the star's periastron advance (analogous to the perihelion advance of [[Mercury]] but a much larger effect]] as well as the increase in the orbital period did much to confirm [[Einstein]]'s theory of [[general relativity]] and the two researchers were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics. <ref>David Darling. ''Gravity's Arc'', 2006, John Wiley & Sons</ref>

== References ==

<references />

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Ptolemy

2007-06-24T02:04:21Z

PerpetualAngst:

''This article is about the geographer Ptolemy. To read about Ptolemy, Alexander the Great's general, see [[Ptolemy I Soter]].''

[[Image:Ptolemy.gif|thumb|200px|Ptolemy]]
Ptolemy (c. 90 – c. 168 AD), Greek mathematician, geographer, astronomer, and astrologer

Nothing is known about where Ptolemy was born or lived during his life. But he is known for his study of the heavens and for his maps. He was one of the first to try and make a complete description of the stars and planets. His model assumed that the earth was in the center of the universe, and the other planets and stars orbited around it.

This theory was popular for nearly 1500 years. It accurately predicted the motion of the planets better than any alternative. It was eventually replaced by [[Heliocentric|heliocentric theory]].

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Astronomers]]

Ptolemy

2007-06-24T02:03:39Z

PerpetualAngst:

Ptolemy

2007-06-24T02:03:03Z

PerpetualAngst:

Neoliberalism

2007-06-24T01:55:58Z

PerpetualAngst:

'''Neoliberalism''' is a new form of the old economic liberalism laid out in [[Adam Smith]]'s famous capitalist manifesto, ''The Wealth of Nations'', soon after the [[Industrial Revolution]]. Neoliberals believe regulation should not be an impediment to manufacturing or commerce, and that high tariffs can be harmful. These ideas were ''liberal'' in the sense of advocating loose controls. In neoliberalism, profits are sought by lowering costs through improvements in the productive powers of labor. There should be reduced costly and unnecessary government regulation without sacrificing environmental protection and job safety.

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Neoliberalism

2007-06-24T01:55:43Z

PerpetualAngst:

Ionization

2007-06-24T01:46:44Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

The process by which an [[atom]] turns into an [[ion]] by gaining or losing [[electrons]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Ion]]

[[Category:Physics]]

Ionization Potential

2007-06-24T01:46:27Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

The amount of energy needed in order to take an electron away from an atom.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Ion]]

[[Category:Physics]]

Ionization Potential

2007-06-24T01:43:26Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

Ionization

2007-06-24T01:42:23Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

Icons of Evolution

2007-06-24T01:41:04Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

Icons of Evolution is a book by [[Jonathon Wells|Jonathan Wells]]. In it, Mr. Wells describes certain myths often used to illustrate evolutionary theory, and explains why they are incorrect. In the late 1970's Mr. Wells decided through his studies, conversations with God, and prayer to devote his life to destroying Darwinism. <ref>http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm</ref>

A number of scientists have thoroughly rebutted every claim Mr. Wells makes in his book. <ref>http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_of_evolution.html#references</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.iconsofevolution.com Icons of Evolution] – Official website
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/ Icons of Evolution FAQs] from [[Talk.Origins]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Intelligent design]]

Hypotenuse

2007-06-24T01:37:51Z

PerpetualAngst:

[[Image:Right_triangle.PNG‎|thumb|250px]]In a [[Right triangle]], the '''Hypotenuse''' is the side opposite the right angle.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Hubble Constant

2007-06-24T01:20:41Z

PerpetualAngst:

The Hubble Constant is the constant of proportionality which gives the relation between apparent recessional [[velocity]] and distance in [[Hubble's law]].

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Gamma-Ray Bursts

2007-06-24T01:04:31Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Sources */

Gamma-Ray Bursts are brief flashes of highly energetic [[photons]] (light) that occur at random times and unpredictable locations in the sky. A gamma-ray burst might look light a flash from a flashlbulb, if the human eye could detect this type of light.

== Sources ==

[http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help/glossfig1.htm Electomagnetic Spectrum diagram]
 [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/images/www-red.gif gamma ray burst as "seen" by a satellite]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Capital punishment

2007-06-24T00:59:39Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Deterrent */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes.

== Capital Punishment in the world today ==
Of the developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] have capital punishment. Western Europe and Canada no longer allow its use. It is also practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on the [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many other countries which are not yet considered to be developed.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by older, white, [[Republican]] males.<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000.

== Catechism of the Catholic Church on Capital Punishment==

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

<ref>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== Biblical View ==
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the [[Bible]], these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)

Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the New Testament nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

== Capital punishment in the United States ==
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis, and several states' laws do not allow for executions.
The practice appears to be on the wane, as appeals and stays of execution create a backlog on death row. [[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws. One man has been on death row in Texas for 31 years. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>

== Methods in the United States ==

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. [[Nebraska]] is the only state of these that does not have lethal injection. [[Electrocution]] is the official method of execution there. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

==Deterrent==

Studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref>

One primary argument against deterrence holds that no one committing a murder expects to be caught. Therefore, the murder is committed irrespective of the consequences.

== See also ==

*[[Guillotine]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Spectrum

2007-06-24T00:46:46Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

The Electromagnetic Spectrum is the entire range of electromagnetic radiation extending in frequency from zero Hertz to 1023 cycles per second (or Hertz).<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help/glossfig1.htm</ref>

Longer wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation such as used in AM radio have lower frequencies (540 to 1600 KHz). FM radio has much shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies (88 to 108 MHz).

Even higher frequencies give as microwave radiation, used in radar and cooking. Still higher is infrared (which can keep food warm from a lamp or heat up your skin from sunlight or fire). Infrared is used in "black light" photography.

Next highest in frequency (and lower in wavelengths) is [[visible light]]: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

Ultraviolet light can give you a suntan (or burn), and too much of certain UV frequencies can increase one's risk of skin cancer. Some frequencies are blocked by the Earth's [[ozone layer]].

Even higher frequencies include X-rays and gamma rays.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Spectrum

2007-06-24T00:46:29Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

Darwin’s Black Box

2007-06-24T00:41:11Z

PerpetualAngst:

''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'' is a 1996 book written by [[Michael Behe]] in which he argues that many biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, and thus the result of intelligent design rather than alleged evolutionary processes.

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Intelligent design]]

Asteroid Belt

2007-06-24T00:20:42Z

PerpetualAngst: /* References */

{{solarsystem}}

The '''Asteroid Belt''' is a large toroidal region in the inner [[Solar system]] with a [[heliocentric]] distance of between 2 and 4 [[AU]] containing nearly two million minor planets <ref>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7925</ref>, or [[asteroids]] rather than a major rocky body like the [[Earth]] or [[Mars]].

== References ==

<references />

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Foucault's Pendulum

2007-06-24T00:19:17Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Other Uses */

Foucault's pendulum is a weight, usually a sphere, suspended by a wire that is attached at the ceiling with a joint that allows the weight to swing in any direction.

The motion of this pendulum proves that the earth is rotating underneath the pendulum. The angle of the rotation of the pendulum per hour remains fixed at any location and equals:

<math>15\sin q</math>

where q is the latitude of the observer. At the equator, the plane in which the pendulum moves does not change.

The physicist Foucault demonstrated this in the church [[Le Pantheon]] in [[Paris]] in 1851.

==Other Uses==

Foucault's Pendulum is also the English name for an Italian novel by [[Umberto Eco]].

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Book]]

Foucault's Pendulum

2007-06-24T00:17:32Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Other Uses */

Talk:Albert Einstein

2007-06-24T00:14:01Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Picture */

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]]

:::Don't forget "Thou shalt not bear false witness." --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:''"Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards."'' Like what? Just have it say "Einstein was not a Christian, so we plan to ignore him.", and then mod-lock the article forever? --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

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

==Notes==
<references/>

== Picture ==

Are you sure that picture ain't too small?
[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]

Albert Einstein

2007-06-24T00:07:36Z

PerpetualAngst: /* False attributions */

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was a theoretical physicist. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany in a Jewish family. During his stay at the Swiss Patent Office Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that President Franklin D. Roosevelt develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate pacifist. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of Israel, but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*IN 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he had formulated his special [[theory of relativity]]. [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*THE SCULPTOR Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.
*:"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough." [ibid]

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2007, NASA reported early results from their satellite Gravity Probe B, confirming 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' Einstein's assertion that large objects such as the Earth distort the fabric of space and time.<ref> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html</ref> The Gravity Probe B project, a joint mission between NASA and Stanford University, used the most precise gyroscopes ever manufactured to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society said: 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, E=mc², the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,'

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass and you release a huge amount of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). What Einstein did was to provide a theoretical framework that accounted for the release of energy, and a quantitative theory that was used by the scientists at Los Alamos who designed and built the bomb.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. His citation did not mention relativity.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, with the support of his colleagues, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself has never been involved in the Manhattan project led by Fermi and he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

Germany was never able to develop nuclear weapons, partly because it rejected "Jewish science" which included the work of Einstein, as a consequence German physicists had to reinvent nuclear physics.{{fact}}

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harve had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remains with Harvey.{{fact}}

==Religion==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to Time magazine in this manner: “I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>

Which shows that while Einstein rejected the traditional personal God of Judaism and Christianity, he did believe in the existence of higher power(s).

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein do not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archieved in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Whatever his views on Zionism were, Einstein has always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== False attributions ==
Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call special relativity. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein. He did not discover the Lorentz transformation, or the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. He was not the first to propose that the speed of light is constant for all observers, or that the aether is superfluous and not observable. He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity. He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional spacetime in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2{{fact}} as a consequence of special relativity, or to foresee its application to nuclear binding energies or antimatter annihilation. He did not foresee a nuclear chain reaction and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an atomic bomb.

Einstein did not originate the idea of using metric tensors to reconcile gravity with special relativity. It was not his idea to describe gravity in covariant equations, and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible. He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity, and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the expansion of the universe, the possibility of black holes, or dark energy.

Einstein never developed a unified field theory of any significance. He published papers on quantum mechanics, but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources."

==References==
<references/>

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists|Einstein, Albert]]

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-23T19:11:53Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-23T16:58:06Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2007-06-23T16:49:41Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution */

Talk:Liberal

2007-06-23T03:54:47Z

PerpetualAngst: /* "American Liberal?" */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
{{Nominate featured}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Common descent

2007-06-23T03:34:07Z

PerpetualAngst: /* Objections to common descent */

'''Common descent''' is an idea in [[Biology]] which is applied on two levels, with a group of species being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader conjecture which asserts that all organisms on earth originated from common ancestors. The idea of common descent is usually associated with Darwin's [[Theory of Evolution]].

Darwin wrote:
:"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the [[Silurian]] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

==Arguments for common descent==

There are several converging lines of argmuentation for common descent. These include but are not limited to:

*[[Homology | Anatomical homologies]]- The phenotype of organisms often share similar structure. This structure often doesn't serve a specific design function and is explained by constraints of common descent.

*[[Endogenous retrovirus | Endogenous retroviral insertions]] - These are inactivated viral genes believed to have been inserted by ancient [[retrovirus]]es. Having the same retrovirus inserted in the same location between two species can be explained by common descent.

*[[Pseudogene]]s - These are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a [[mutation]]. Species often share the same pseudogene, with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which synthesizes vitamin c; humans and all simians share this pseudogene, but the guinea pig which also has an inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase gene has a different mutation.

*The convergence of [[phylogenetic tree]]s using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the tree are intact. If all of these methods were flawed you would not expect each of them to converge on the same tree.

*[[Embryology]] - The [[pharyngula]] stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved over time. At this stage it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species.

==Objections to common descent==

Dr. Jonathon Wells published a book in 2002 entitled ''[[Icons of Evolution]]''. Dr. Wells says that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
Also, he says that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm (Wells)]

On the other hand, noted evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref>http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>

Some advocates of ''Intelligent Design'' also accept common descent. Most notably Michael Behe:
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

Most textbooks used in modern biology classes use photographs of real embryos now rather than the drawings. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biology]][[Category:Evolution]]

Michael Behe

2007-06-23T03:29:24Z

PerpetualAngst:

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]] who wrote ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'', a book which presents a case for [[Intelligent Design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]] are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Behe also said:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe also accepts ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent design theorists]]

Albert Einstein

2007-06-23T02:13:33Z

PerpetualAngst: /* False attributions */

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was a theoretical physicist. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany in a Jewish family. During his stay at the Swiss Patent Office Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that President Franklin D. Roosevelt develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate pacifist. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of Israel, but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*IN 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he had formulated his special [[theory of relativity]]. [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*THE SCULPTOR Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.
*:"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough." [ibid]

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2007, NASA reported early results from their satellite Gravity Probe B, confirming 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' Einstein's assertion that large objects such as the Earth distort the fabric of space and time.<ref> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html</ref> The Gravity Probe B project, a joint mission between NASA and Stanford University, used the most precise gyroscopes ever manufactured to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society said: 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, E=mc², the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,'

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass and you release a huge amount of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). What Einstein did was to provide a theoretical framework that accounted for the release of energy, and a quantitative theory that was used by the scientists at Los Alamos who designed and built the bomb.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. His citation did not mention relativity.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, with the support of his colleagues, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself has never been involved in the Manhattan project led by Fermi and he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

Germany was never able to develop nuclear weapons, partly because it rejected "Jewish science" which included the work of Einstein, as a consequence German physicists had to reinvent nuclear physics.{{fact}}

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harve had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remains with Harvey.{{fact}}

==Religion==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to Time magazine in this manner: “I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>

Which shows that while Einstein rejected the traditional personal God of Judaism and Christianity, he did believe in the existence of higher power(s).

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein do not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archieved in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Whatever his views on Zionism were, Einstein has always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== False attributions ==
Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call special relativity. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein. He did not discover the Lorentz transformation, or the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. He was not the first to propose that the speed of light is constant for all observers, or that the aether is superfluous and not observable. He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity. He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional spacetime in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.{{fact}}

Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2 as a consequence of special relativity, or to foresee its application to nuclear binding energies or antimatter annihilation. He did not foresee a nuclear chain reaction and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an atomic bomb.{{fact}}

Einstein did not originate the idea of using metric tensors to reconcile gravity with special relativity. It was not his idea to describe gravity in covariant equations, and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible. He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity, and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the expansion of the universe, the possibility of black holes, or dark energy.{{fact}}

Einstein never developed a unified field theory of any significance. He published papers on quantum mechanics, but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources."{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists|Einstein, Albert]]