Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?

2007-04-13T17:17:41Z

Rumple: /* YES! */

{{debate}}

In other words, if the Bible started with the story of Abraham and never mentioned how the earth was created, would anyone consider the idea that the earth was not millions of years old? Or does a desire to prove the Bible correct form the basis of creation science? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==YES!==
Young earth is a fact that is validated by an unbiased and accurate assesment of the evidence. The bible may have provided the clues but it stands on its own.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

What evidence?

==No!==

In the bible, outside of Genesis, God rhetorically inquires of Job if he was present when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and the theological point he is trying to make is that the earth predates man by many years and includes wonders and mysteries that Job could not even begin to imagine. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an old earth doctrine would have been established. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
The questions seem to contradict eachother, so I'll post here. If there was no creation story, then the literal biblists wouldn't immediately throw out all the scientific evidence of evolution. Most likely they'd accept it and go on with their lives. But since the story does exist, they feel it necessary to accept this as the literal truth and refuse to believe anything contrary to what they read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but not anymore==

I think that prior to ways of interpreting the evidence that led to the understanding of a very old earth, most cultures would not have thought the earth was much older than their oldest records or legends - they would have no reason to do so. With modern scientific interpretations and more evidence of an old earth, a literal interpretation of the Creation in Genesis becomes more difficult to hold, and if it were not there (the Creation story), even fundamental literalists would have no reason not to accept that God made the earth a lot longer ago then previously thought. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

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

2007-04-13T16:22:30Z

Rumple: /* Teach all theories */

{{debate-politics}}

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

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

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

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

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

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

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

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

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

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

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

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

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

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

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

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

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

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

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

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

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story.

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Affirmative Action

2007-04-13T14:31:23Z

Rumple:

'''Affirmative action''' is a remedy for the historical effects of race discrimination, which has immediate and visible effects (compare [[gradualism]]).
There are many such policies, programs, and laws intended to boost ethnic [[Minority|minorities]] in the [[United States]] in the government, schools and large companies. However, in implementation, affirmative action is an area in which government policy is contradictory.

The law of the United States is non-discrimination: the concept that race, sex, ethnicity, skin color, or country of national origin are not criteria which should be used in job selection, education opportunities, etc. The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities. This would be, in its way, admirable.

However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.

Luckily, Regents v. Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States law]]

Affirmative Action

2007-04-13T14:30:26Z

Rumple:

'''Affirmative action''' is a remedy for the historical effects of race discrimination, which has immediate and visible effects (compare [[gradualism]]).
There are many such policies, programs, and laws intended to boost ethnic [[Minority|minorities]] in the [[United States]] in the government, schools and large companies. However, in implementation, affirmative action is an area in which government policy is contradictory.

The law of the United States is non-discrimination: the concept that race, sex, ethnicity, skin color, or country of national origin are not criteria which should be used in job selection, education opportunities, etc. The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities. This would be, in its way, admirable.

However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.

Luckily, Mr. Justice Powell concluded in Regents of the University Of California v. Bakke that
<ref>"Racial and ethnic classifications of any sort are inherently suspect and call for the most exacting judicial scrutiny. While the goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race in admissions decisions under some circumstances, petitioner's special admissions program, which forecloses consideration to persons like respondent, is unnecessary to the achievement of this compelling goal and therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause."</ref>

Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States law]]

Date of creation

2007-04-13T14:12:01Z

Rumple: /* Calculated dates */

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from Adam to Abraham, listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 22]], [[4004]] BC.<ref>The Annals of the World, by James Ussher.</ref> However, only the year was based on the Biblical ages; the date and time were based on other considerations. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date. Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

But such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition (to which the Old Testament of course belongs) reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

Based on geological dating methods, scientific research shows the Earth actually formed around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-04-13T14:06:55Z

Rumple: /* No. Not always: */

{{debate}}

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

How can "A conservative encyclopedia" (see front page) '''ever''' be unbiased --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

No. Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world (even the English language version), so obviously the average point of view expressed on Wikipedia is not going to be the same as the average point of view in the US. And it's especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American conservatives (who don't represent all Americans). And it's especially especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American-Christian-biblical-literalist-creationist-pro-war-anti-free-trade conservatives (who don't represent all American conservatives). Is representing the whole world somehow evidence of bias???

And what nuthead got the idea to call this thing "conservapedia" anyway, when it clearly does not represent conservatives as a whole??? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

It depends on how you see things. I have no clue why Liberals and Conservatives are fighting in the first place. The interior battle causes many bad apples and possibly civil war. Maybe not about the civil war but still. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I doubt wikipedia is biased; it's just wrong a lot, given that anybody who thinks they know something can edit it. That said, I'd be much more afraid of a site where anybody who thinks they know something can post, but the site itself advocates a specific ideology. A site like that could get away with outrageous claims, like it invented the question mark, or like the earth was created at 6:00 pm Saturday, October 22, 4004 B.C.--Rumple

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

Well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

The only reason people think any sort of "Liberal Media" exists is because said sources base their claims on fact, evidence, and obsective logical inquiry. Religious conservative positions are unavoidably at odds with these claims because faith-based and religious claims are claims made upon little or no evidence. Wikipedia is a neutral perspective, and having that perspective means that fact outweighs faith. It's that simple. Wikipedia isn't biased... it just doesn't favor Conservatism, a luxory that Conservative Christians have become far too attached to. - [[Crazy Mother|Crazy Mother]]

==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==
Dan Rather and Meredith Viera are fair and balanced compared to Wikipedia. There are many examples. Compare the Jesus as Myth article to the Intelligent Design Article. Compare the Christmas article to the Passover Article. Compare any article about anything Christian, to, say, an article on Wicca, Voodoo or Paganism. Wikipedia is on a mission to topple the dominant culture of America. Wikipedia complies strictly with "politically correct" notions such as the ridiculous belief that "Chinaman" and "Oriental" are slurs. Would someone please explain why Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman, Englishman, Frenchman and Dutchman are not slurs, but Chinaman is? The site is founded on the belief that it's important to "question" (read as undermine) the credibility of the thoughts and philosophies that made America the envy of the world, but at the same time treat every minority crack-pot theory with kid gloves.

Thank God this site exists. I'm looking forward to contributing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-04-13T14:04:23Z

Rumple: /* No. Not always: */

{{debate}}

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

How can "A conservative encyclopedia" (see front page) '''ever''' be unbiased --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

No. Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world (even the English language version), so obviously the average point of view expressed on Wikipedia is not going to be the same as the average point of view in the US. And it's especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American conservatives (who don't represent all Americans). And it's especially especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American-Christian-biblical-literalist-creationist-pro-war-anti-free-trade conservatives (who don't represent all American conservatives). Is representing the whole world somehow evidence of bias???

And what nuthead got the idea to call this thing "conservapedia" anyway, when it clearly does not represent conservatives as a whole??? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

It depends on how you see things. I have no clue why Liberals and Conservatives are fighting in the first place. The interior battle causes many bad apples and possibly civil war. Maybe not about the civil war but still. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I doubt wikipedia is biased, it's just wrong a lot, given that anybody who thinks they know something can edit it. That said, I'd be much more afraid of a site where anybody who thinks they know something can post, but which in addition has a published ideology. A site like that could get away with outrageous claims, like it invented the question mark, or the earth was created at 6:00 pm Saturday, October 22, 4004 B.C.--Rumple

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

Well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

The only reason people think any sort of "Liberal Media" exists is because said sources base their claims on fact, evidence, and obsective logical inquiry. Religious conservative positions are unavoidably at odds with these claims because faith-based and religious claims are claims made upon little or no evidence. Wikipedia is a neutral perspective, and having that perspective means that fact outweighs faith. It's that simple. Wikipedia isn't biased... it just doesn't favor Conservatism, a luxory that Conservative Christians have become far too attached to. - [[Crazy Mother|Crazy Mother]]

==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==
Dan Rather and Meredith Viera are fair and balanced compared to Wikipedia. There are many examples. Compare the Jesus as Myth article to the Intelligent Design Article. Compare the Christmas article to the Passover Article. Compare any article about anything Christian, to, say, an article on Wicca, Voodoo or Paganism. Wikipedia is on a mission to topple the dominant culture of America. Wikipedia complies strictly with "politically correct" notions such as the ridiculous belief that "Chinaman" and "Oriental" are slurs. Would someone please explain why Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman, Englishman, Frenchman and Dutchman are not slurs, but Chinaman is? The site is founded on the belief that it's important to "question" (read as undermine) the credibility of the thoughts and philosophies that made America the envy of the world, but at the same time treat every minority crack-pot theory with kid gloves.

Thank God this site exists. I'm looking forward to contributing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)