Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Kangaroo

2007-03-23T18:31:28Z

Sarah B: /* Reproduction */

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]] -- the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo -- or at least sixty-nine [[species]] according to evolutionary views<ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Austalian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

The [[Creationism|creationist]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] states the following regarding the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] of kangaroo origin:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...

However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/kangaroos.asp "Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship"], Answers In Genesis</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists believe that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing that the origin of the kangaroo was the result of evolution. They believe that this is not surprising given their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position. <ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Fossil Record Quotes], CreationWiki</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref>

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ag1">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- as it is thought that Australia was still for a time after the Flood connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ag1"/>
The theory that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-01-22T18:03:57Z

Sarah B: /* Evolution is a Racist Philosophy */

Post Your Thoughts

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

>95% of academic biologists support it.

Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.

:'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]]

: '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.

: You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:

* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

: All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

>It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.

In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.

It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).

It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?

::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

==No==

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp]]

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

'''No'''
: 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
:::'''Counter:'''

:::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.

: 4. All mutations are harmful.
::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrasing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

:::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.

:::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

== Evolution is a Racist Philosophy ==

*"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."

*"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn

*The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''

*Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-01-22T18:03:39Z

Sarah B: /* Evolution is a Racist Philosophy */

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-01-22T18:02:55Z

Sarah B:

Post Your Thoughts

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

>95% of academic biologists support it.

Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.

:'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]]

: '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.

: You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:

* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

: All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

>It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.

In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.

It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).

It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?

::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

==No==

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp]]

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

'''No'''
: 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
:::'''Counter:'''

:::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.

: 4. All mutations are harmful.
::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrasing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

:::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.

:::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

== Evolution is a Racist Philosophy ==

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn

The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''

Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-01-01T00:36:02Z

Sarah B:

February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004. The fortieth President of the United States from 1981-1989. Considered by many to be the greatest Conservative American President, Ronald Reagan's greatest accomplishments include leading America peacefully through the Cold War, reducing the size of the federal government, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy and staunchly opposing socialism and communism. Reagan was also served two terms as governor of California from 1967–1975. He is famous for uttering the words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," before the tearing down of the [[Berlin Wall]] separating East and West Germany.

2006-12-07T05:17:36Z

Sarah B:

Venustiano Carranza

2006-12-07T05:16:28Z

Sarah B:

Venustiano Carranza Garza was born on December 29, 1859 in the town of Cuatro Ciénegas, in the state of Coahuila. He was one of the leaders of the [[Mexican Revolution]]. He eventually became President of Mexico and during his administration he drafted the current constitution of Mexico.

Medieval architecture

2006-12-07T04:07:16Z

Sarah B:

Outstanding architecture in the Middle Ages was seen primarily in the construction of majestic churches, and consisted of two main styles: [[Romanesque]] and [[Gothic]].

[[Image:Notre-dame.jpg|thumb|left|320px|The [[Notre Dame]] in [[Paris]]]]

==A. Romanesque==
----
Romanesque architecture is characterized by thick walls and small windows.

==B. Gothic==
----
[[Image:rosewindow.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Rose Window]] of the [[Notre Dame]]]]
The Gothic style, developed later, consisted of taller, perpendicular structures, with long windows, pointed arches and “flying buttresses” (stone supports on the outer walls of churches). Gothic architecture, with its tall, pointed spires is said to reflect the desire of people of the [[Middle Ages]] to grow closer to God, reaching towards heaven and away from the earth. Tall windows allowed sunlight to illuminate the interior, unlike Romanesque architecture, in which windows were small and interiors were dim. A particularly stunning example of Gothic architecture is the [[Notre Dame]] in Paris, on which construction began in 1163 during the reign of [[Louis VII]]. The Notre Dame features a beautiful 'rose window'--another distinguishing characteristic of Gothic architecture.

Medieval architecture

2006-12-07T04:06:03Z

Sarah B: /* B. Gothic */

Outstanding architecture in the Middle Ages was seen primarily in the construction of majestic churches, and consisted of two main styles: [[Romanesque]] and [[Gothic]].

[[Image:Notre-dame.jpg|thumb|left|320px|The [[Notre Dame]] in [[Paris]]]]

==A. Romanesque==
----
Romanesque architecture is characterized by thick walls and small windows.

==B. Gothic==
----
The Gothic style, developed later, consisted of taller, perpendicular structures, with long windows, pointed arches and “flying buttresses” (stone supports on the outer walls of churches). Gothic architecture, with its tall,

[[Image:rosewindow.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Rose Window]] of the [[Notre Dame]]]]

pointed spires is said to reflect the desire of people of the [[Middle Ages]] to grow closer to God, reaching towards heaven and away from the earth. Tall windows allowed sunlight to illuminate the interior, unlike Romanesque architecture, in which windows were small and interiors were dim. A particularly stunning example of Gothic architecture is the [[Notre Dame]] in Paris, on which construction began in 1163 during the reign of [[Louis VII]]. The Notre Dame features a beautiful 'rose window'--another distinguishing characteristic of Gothic architecture.

Medieval architecture

2006-12-07T04:05:44Z

User talk:ChrisS

2006-12-06T20:24:39Z

Sarah B:

User talk:Sarah B

2006-12-06T20:24:13Z

Sarah B:

Sarah, you spelled Michaelangelo wrong! You spelled it "Michelangelo"

--[[User:ChrisS|The Unknown One]] 13:46, 6 December 2006 (EST)

REPLY:

Christopher, you are sadly mistaken. "Michelangelo" is the correct spelling. Please don't question me. I know these things. Michelangelo is an ''Italian'' name. The vowel combination "ae" does not even exist in the Italian Language! (Except in very rare cases...) "Michael" is the English spelling of the Italian name "Michele"... which are both spelled and pronounced differently. Thus, not only is "Michelangelo" the correct spelling, but "Mee-keh-LAHN-jeh-loh" is the correct pronounciation. ;)

xoxoxo Sarah

File:Leonardowoman.jpg

2006-12-06T20:13:15Z

Sarah B:

User talk:Sarah B

2006-12-06T20:09:46Z

Sarah B:

2006-12-06T18:27:32Z

Sarah B:

File:Monalisa.jpg

2006-12-06T18:24:18Z

Sarah B:

File:Duomoflorence.jpg

2006-12-06T18:07:47Z

Sarah B:

2006-12-06T17:21:18Z

Sarah B:

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the NY Times Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|200px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code makes some astounding assertions about Christianity that, if true, would uproot everything traditional Biblical Christianity stands for, and could potentially destroy the faith of millions. Although only a novel, Dan Brown creates the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched, even including a “fact page” in the beginning of the book and making references to numerous subsidizing “historical” sources, historians and scholars throughout.

In an interview on Good Morning America, Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) This statement alone proves that Dan Brown takes the content of his “novel” very seriously—so seriously in fact, that on the same interview he even described a religious-sounding experience he had while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”—by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. “Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4)
By its own author’s confession, The Da Vinci Code is far more than a mere work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----
The plot of The Da Vinci Code is complex and involving. The book is essentially a detective-style story about Robert Langdon, a “symbologist” who is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the Louvre museum in Paris. (Incidentally, there is no such thing as a symbologist.) (Blogcritics.org) Langdon and Sophie are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.
The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the Knight’s Templar and the Priory of Scion—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the Holy Grail, which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.

Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy. But just how credible are Brown’s assertions?

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the Louvre, the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and Holy Blood, Holy Grail as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and The Goddess in the Gospels, both by Margaret Starbird, who uses, among other things, numerology(the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the Gnostic gospels (which will be discussed in further detail in the next section). (Welborn 63)

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. In 1969, the Catholic Church issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as Hippolytus, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the Gnostic gospel of Philip, written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the Bible, women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. Darrell L. Bock, P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married."(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, Archbishop George H. Niederauer points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

==='''Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”'''===
----
While Dan Brown exalts Mary Magdalene to the point of goddess status, at the same time he ironically claims that the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, that Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God! This is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. According to Dan Brown, after Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but egotistical Peter took over, and Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. Peter’s goal was to suppress the truth about who Mary was.

This idea is inconsistent with Biblical record. You see, in all four of the Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. And the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this. Yes, in the censored, biased, chauvinistic Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to none other than the hated, demonized Mary Magdalene. It makes no sense at all. Perhaps if the Bible had been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown would have picked up on this logical inconsistency—but it is glaringly absent from his 30-item bibliography.

Instead, he relies on a sole passage from the Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did her prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of. (Welborn 69) None of the Gnostic gospels are traceable to a single person who knew Jesus. (Welborn 55) But even if it were a more credible source, this excerpt is taken out of context from the rest of the Gnostic gospels. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.” However, when a deeper look is taken, the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women; observe his remarkably “sexist” words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (which the evangelist equates with the female) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
If Brown had told the whole story, perhaps Sophie would not view the Gnostic Jesus as the “original feminist”. ("Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

==='''Part III: The Gnostics & the Non-canonical Gospels'''===
----
So, the Peter-party myth has been “busted.” We have seen that the Bible does not demonize Mary Magdalene the way Dan Brown claims it does, and the Gnostic texts Brown used for “evidence” did not present an accurate representation of Gnosticism. So, who exactly were the Gnostics? They were one of the first of many cults—or groups that branched off from Christianity because of disagreements with aspects of Christian doctrine. Brown conveniently does not mention Docetism, a first century cult of the belief that Jesus Christ was only God, and not at all human. (Niederauer) Gnosticism arose in the century after Jesus’ death and (not unlike Dan Brown himself) believed they held the key to some secret, hidden knowledge (or gnosis) about Jesus. (Ehrman 42) The Gnostics claimed to rely entirely on knowledge or reason, and viewed God as an intangible, mystical force. The term “agnostic” is now used to refer to individuals who claim that understanding God is impossible because it is somehow beyond human reasoning. (Schlafly) However, what Dan Brown claims they believed about Jesus is a far cry from the truth.

Dan Brown asserts throughout The Da Vinci Code that Gnostics knew the truth about Mary Magdalene, wanted to restore the sacred feminine, and were even the first “feminists”. In spite of Brown’s wishful thinking, we have already seen conflicting evidence that Gnostics believed women were less than men.

Dan Brown is also of the belief that the Gnostics did not believe Jesus was divine. Brown states that orthodox Christianity ignored Jesus’ humanity, while the Gnostics—who believed Jesus was merely a mortal prophet—stressed his humanity far too much for the likes of the “winners.” Thus, their gospels were censored, and their hidden secret knowledge locked away and forgotten for centuries—until now. Brown presumes to reveal to his readers the truth about Jesus—that he was completely human, that he was married, and that he had sex.

Well, the Gnostic gospels do exactly the opposite. They do not extol the humanity of Jesus whatsoever, instead focusing on his divine, spiritual qualities. Most (if not all) of the Gnostics did not even believe Jesus was human, but a divine spirit in human form! (Ehrman 44) Furthermore, “the Gnostics thought the dominant church of the day was too earth bound, too worldly, too materialistic, too physical.” (Burnstein 99)

In the very same gospel that contains the famous “kiss” passage—the Gospel of Philip—the Gnostics describe sex as “beastly, literally comparing it to animals.” (Burnstein 99) In general, the Gnostics condemned the physical world and everything it contained. Salvation, the Gnostics believed, was “the freeing of the spirit from the contamination of matter…some held that Christ merely seemed to be man and was really pure spirit.” (Latourette 124)

The Da Vinci Code states that “over eighty” gospels were censored. First of all, there were nowhere near that many gospels, this number is total fabrication on Dan Brown’s part. There are about two dozen non-canonical gospels in existence—most found by accident fairly recently, like the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls. Brown states that the reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen was that they were the ones that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and downplayed his humanity the most. We’ve also seen this to be untrue with the Gnostic gospels, but what about the rest of the non-canonical gospels?

Bart Ehrman in his book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, critiques six typical examples of non-canonical gospels. The gospels he discusses include The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospels of Philip and Mary. Each one presents a consistently more divine picture of Jesus that the canonical gospels. Some even stand directly against the view that Jesus was human and deemphasize his humanity. (Ehrman 49-71)

==='''Part IV: Constantine and the Council of Nicaea'''===
----
<blockquote>
''…for inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precedes error.'' –Tertullian in ''Against Marcion''
</blockquote>
[[The Council of Nicaea]] (325 AD)—presided over by Roman Emperor [[Constantine]]—was the first ecumenical gathering of Christians. In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes some startling assertions about the Council and its leader, Constantine.

First, Brown states that the Council was held to “strengthen the new Christian tradition.” This is not correct. The Council was held to reinforce and unify Christian teachings that had already been in existence since the days of Jesus. (religionfacts.com) No new teachings were strengthened at the Council of Nicaea, in fact it was the new teachings—most prominently Aryanism—that were brought under attack at the Council. (Latourette 120-160)

Second, Brown states that “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon” at the Council of Nicaea. This is true. Among other things, the date of Easter was voted on at the Council. So was the divinity of Jesus. But not, as Brown suggests, the issue of whether or not Jesus was divine—just the manner of his divinity. “The debate and vote concerned whether Jesus was divine in the same sense as God the Father, or if he was a lesser deity created by the Father.” (religionfacts.com) Additionally, Jesus’ divinity was not determined by a “relatively close” vote as Brown states, but an overwhelming majority; there were a mere two dissenters out of the entire group of about 500 bishops. (Welborn 45)

Third, Brown makes this startling claim: “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.” This is entirely incorrect. In their book, Cracking the Da Vinci Code, James Garlow and Peter Jones list a dozen examples of church leaders—apart from the Bible—who spoke directly of Jesus’ divinity from 105 A.D. to 305 A.D.—historical proof of Christians who believed Jesus was divine at least two centuries before the Council. Clement said in 150 A.D., “It is fitting you should think of Jesus Christ as God,” and Novation, “He is not only man, but God also.” (Garlow and Jones 94)

Fourth, Brown states that "Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base…" Brown states that the divinity of Christ was an invention by power-hungry Constantine seeking to unify the Roman Empire under the banner of Christianity. If it hadn’t been for Constantine, Christianity would never have survived throughout history. We certainly would not have the great and powerful establishment know as “the Vatican” (which Brown apparently thinks is the sum total of Christianity) that we have today. Gradually, Christianity would have fizzled out and died and few would even remember the mortal prophet Jesus today.

Now, even if it were true that Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, it is highly doubtful that this would have had any effect on the power and success of Christianity…just look at Islam. Muhammad was a completely mortal prophet, yet the religion he founded “unified empires and gave great power to religious authorities.” (religiousfacts.com) According to Brown, the success of Christianity was the result of Constantine’s endorsement of the religion. However, the opposite was true! It is very likely that Constantine’s motive was “to enlist the cooperation of what had become the strongest element in the empire: Christianity”. Christianity would have survived with or without Constantine’s endorsement. (Latourette 105)

The last claim Brown makes is that Constantine personally compiled that Bible as we know it today at the Council. He included books that emphasize Jesus’ divinity, and excluded books that mention his humanity. We have already seen that the books excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic texts, do not emphasize Jesus’ humanity whatsoever. In fact, they do the opposite. What Brown fails to note is that the Bible itself speaks much more, and in great detail about Jesus’ humanity. Once again, perhaps if Brown had bothered reading the Bible while conducting research, he wouldn’t have made this flagrant error.

The Gnostic Jesus ”shares wisdom, reveals secrets, and wanders around in a gently spiritual fog, and talks, and talks. And talks.” (Welborn 57) In the Bible, Jesus is described as “eating, drinking, being angry, frightened, lonely, grieving, suffering, and dying.” The poignantly human descriptions of Jesus found in the four Biblical gospels starkly contrast to the mystical, unapproachable and verbose Jesus of the Gnostic gospels. Only someone totally ignorant of the Bible would dream of saying its depiction of Jesus ignores his humanity. (Welborn 57)

Brown asserts that it was not until after the Council of Nicaea that the world saw the list of books we know today as the Bible. Historian Kurt Aland identifies this as error in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''The canon was not imposed from the top… and then accepted by communities. The organized church did not create the canon; it recognized the canon that had already been created. '' –Kurt Aland
</blockquote>
The gospels were well established long before Constantine was born. In fact, 150 years before Constantine, Christian leaders dealt with issues radical Marcion raised about the canon, which proves a list of books very close to ours was in existence centuries before Constantine.

Brown also states that the four chosen gospels were “embellished” to further demonize Mary Magdalene, emphasize Jesus’ humanity and so forth. By the fourth century there were hundreds—maybe thousands of copies of those four gospels in existence. It is impossible that some authority ordered every copy altered. Today, among surviving ancient copies of these gospels no “embellished” versions exist. (Garlow and Jones 147)

==='''Part V: Secret Societies'''===
----
The first page in The Da Vinci Code is entitled “facts”. The following statement is made about the ancient, secret society known as the “Priory of Scion”:
<blockquote>
''The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.''
</blockquote>
The Priory of Scion, Dan Brown goes on to explain in further detail in the novel, is a secret organization founded to preserve the “Holy Grail”—or the truth about who Mary Magdalene was. It turns out, however, that the Priory of Scion is none of those things. It was founded in the mid-1950s by Pierre Plantard, “an anti-Semite who sought to ‘purify and renew’ France.” In an attempt to prove that he was an heir to the French throne, and a descendent of the royal Merovingian family, Plantard planted false documents in French libraries and archives. (Welborn 107) The so-called Les Dossiers Secrets are totally fabricated, modern documents, made to look ancient. They feature a list of members that include every “intellectual superstar” from the past 1,000 years—an unlikely combination of people of entirely different backgrounds and beliefs. (Welborn 108)

Brown also states that the Priory of Scion went on to found the Knights Templar, another organization dedicated to protecting the “Holy Grail”. This was a real, historical organization, but it was not founded by the Priory of Scion and its original purpose was to protect pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. (Beyond TDVC) Brown also alleges that the Knights Templar became such a powerful organization because of its valuable secret. The Templar blackmailed the Catholic Church and became increasingly rich and powerful until Pope Clement finally had them arrested and disbanded. These claims are absurd to serious Templar historians. (Beyond TDVC)

The Templar’s wealth did not come from blackmailing the Vatican; it came from enormous popular support and gifts from wealthy patrons. (Beyond TDVC) Pope Clement did disband the Knights Templar, but it was not because of the secret they kept. It was for money. Clement was little more than a puppet of King Philip IV of France, who, being at war with England was in dire need of money. On Friday the 13th 1307, King Philip IV of France had every single member of the Knights Templar arrested, accused of heresy, and tutored. This allowed Philip to justify his looting of Templar treasuries. Pope Clement V was then pressured to disband them by King Philip, which he finally did in 1312. Incidentally, although Philip was supposed to turn over the Templar’s vast amounts of land and assets to the Knights Hospitallers, he retained much of it for himself. (wikipedia.org)

==='''Part VI: Feminism in The Da Vinci Code'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is so much about the Church demonizing women throughout the centuries that it is no surprise it is a huge hit among women—and feminists in particular. The amount of ideologically-motivated material in The Da Vinci Code is startling. One example is that Brown perpetuates the idea of the “Sacred Feminine/Mother Goddess” throughout the book. This idea basically states that in ancient times, people primarily worshipped female deities. Because their religion was based on femininity, reproduction and therefore agriculture played an important part in their lives. Ancient societies were made up of peace-loving farmers, who were in tune with nature, respected women, did not engage in warfare or even own weapons designed for killing humans. (Welborn 74)

This school of thought holds that it was not until Indo-European invaders arrived that these egalitarian, matriarchal societies were brought to an end. Warfare, weapons, male warrior gods, and patriarchal society were introduced and the age of the mother goddess ended. (Welborn 74) Dan Brown presents this view of ancient civilization as historical fact, and states that Jesus’ main goal was to restore the sacred feminine by introducing Mary Magdalene as the new female deity, bringing things back to their natural order. However, there is one problem with this: numerous recent archaeological finds have proved the mother goddess theory to be nothing but a myth. There is no evidence that such a period in time ever existed. (Welborn 74)

Another area in which Dan Brown misconstrues facts to further the feminist cause is when, through the character Teabing, he makes the following declaration: "the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women" over a three-century time period (he doesn’t specify which three centuries, but it can be assumed he meant 1500-1800). Considerable recent research on this subject states the number to be around 40,000. Dan Brown is not even close.

The church certainly would not have felt threatened by any of these women, as Dan Brown suggests; they were poor and unpopular—not powerful, freethinking women. Furthermore, it was rare that church authorities accused witches; it was almost always ordinary citizens, and often other women! Interestingly, 20-25% of witchcraft charges were made against men and more than half of witch-trial defendants—male and female—were acquitted. As Amy Welborn puts it, “the witch-trial hype was apparently a nuisance to authorities.” (Welborn 77)

Additionally, Brown states that the Malleus Maleficarum “Hammer of the Witches” was a “universal guide” to witch trials, mass produced and used by church authorities everywhere— basically, the misogynist bible. The Malleus Maleficarum was a real book, and it certainly was an evil work, but it only went through 30 printings (amazon.com) and its author was not Catholic, but a Dominican Inquisitionist Heinrich Kramer, an unsuccessful fraud. Although Kramer claimed experience in over 100 trials, he actually only tried 8 women and was thrown out of the second town he went to. (Welborn 78)

Perhaps the most serious fact overlooked by Dan Brown in his representation of the Catholic Church as anti-female is Mary the Mother of Jesus. Dan Brown’s total silence on this matter is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows anything about Christianity. The truth is that the Catholic Church holds Mary in extremely high esteem—some even believe too much. She is such a central figure in the Catholic faith, that at times she appears as important as Jesus Christ himself. However, Dan Brown has seemingly never heard of her.

==='''Part VII: Leonardo DaVinci'''===
----
So, by this time you are probably thinking as I did, “Brown must have at least gotten Da Vinci right!” Well, as it turns out—and by this point, it should not be very surprising—he did not. The list of errors Brown makes about the title-inspiring Leonardo Da Vinci is lengthy. On his official website, Brown states that Leonardo was “a prankster and genius" who is "widely believed to have hidden secret messages within much of his artwork." This is simply not true; it's almost impossible to locate any serious art scholar or historian who believes that about Leonardo Da Vinci. (Olson and Miesel)

Additionally, a credible art historian would not dream of referring to the artist as “Da Vinci” –that was not his name. It was Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, and it has been shortened to “Leonardo” in art history books. Da Vinci is merely a reference to the Tuscan province Leonardo was from. Brown’s reference to the artist as Da Vinci “grates on the nerves of everyone who is knowledgeable about art.” (Burnstein 260) Brown also claims that Leonardo received "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions" in his lifetime. As a matter of fact, he only received one—which was never completed. (Beyond TDVC)

Dan Brown claims that "…Most scholars agree that even Da Vinci's most famous pieces —works like the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and Madonna of the Rocks — contain startling anomalies that all seem to be whispering the same cryptic message." However, most scholars do not agree with Brown’s interpretations of Leonardo’s artwork, instead viewing them as dubious at best. In the painting The Last Supper, Dan Brown interprets the disciple John seated on Jesus’ right to be Mary Magdalene, and the ‘M’ shape created by negative space behind those seated at the table to stand for Mary Magdalene.

Georgetown art historian Diane Cappadonna states,
<blockquote>''I do not believe there is a woman in The Last Supper, and I do not believe in any way that it is Mary Magdalene. The ‘V’ shapes”—not a single ‘M’ as Brown interprets—“that are there serve a solely artistic purpose—to place emphasis in the composition on Christ and to emphasize perspective.'' (Burnstein 229-230) </blockquote> Brown also argues the case that the figure must be a woman because “Da Vinci was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.” It certainly is true that Leonardo was a skilled painter; however all Renaissance artists depicted the disciple John as decidedly effeminate… Leonardo included. In fact, most young men were painted with very womanly features. In Leonardo’s painting St. John the Baptist; the face is astonishingly similar to John in The Last Supper—and equally feminine. Are we to suppose that this also is secretly Mary Magdalene?

[[Image: johnthebaptist.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Leonardo's''St. John the Baptist'']]
[[Image: lastsupperjohn.gif|thumb|right|200px|John from Leonardo's''The Last Supper'']]

In addition to The Last Supper, Brown states that "…works like the Mona Lisa and Madonna of the Rocks al[so] …seem to be whispering the same cryptic message. He goes on to describe the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait. Shelley Esaak explains Brown’s reasoning behind making such an assertion:
<blockquote>
''‘Mona Lisa’ is an anagram of ‘Amon’ and ‘Isis,’ if you write ‘Isis’ in the manner of some (unreferenced) ancient pictogram that roughly translates to ‘L'isa’ in Latin text. Thus PROVING that (quoting from p. 121) “… not only does the face of Mona Lisa look androgynous, but her name is an anagram of the divine union of male and female. And that, my friends, is Da Vinci's little secret, and the reason for Mona Lisa's knowing smile.’” (Esaak) </blockquote>
Unfortunately, Brown’s explanation is entirely fictitious. Leonardo did not name the 'Mona Lisa'. The painting remained completely unnamed until the year 1550—years after Leonardo’s death. '' (Esaak)

Brown also makes some errors when discussing the painting Madonna (or Virgin) on the Rocks. He states that nuns from the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception gave Leonardo particular instructions on what was to be the dimensions and content of the painting. Brown’s first mistake is in describing the members of the confraternity as nuns—it was definitely an entirely male group as the name (con) ''fraternity'' suggests! (Olson and Miesel)

Brown then goes on to state that “the nuns” wished for the painting to contain Mary, Jesus, John the Baptist and the angel Uriel. Leonardo followed “the nuns” instructions, but the first version he painted contained "explosive and disturbing details." Actually, the confraternity wanted God the Father overhead, with two prophets on the side panels and the Virgin of the Rocks centered in the middle. It is not known exactly what conspired between Leonardo and the monks, but it is know that Leonardo did not follow their original instructions. There was nothing startlingly “un-Christian” in either version. (Olson and Miesel)

==='''Part VIII: Dan Brown’s Representation of Christianity'''===
----
Throughout The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown paints a picture of Christianity, and most importantly, its central figure: Jesus Christ. In official interviews, he states that he himself is a Christian. (danbrown.com ) But repeatedly, he proves in The Da Vinci Code that his understanding of Christianity is a sadly twisted and empty one.

He repeatedly refers to the sum total of Christians as “the Vatican” or “Rome”. He does not distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant traditions whatsoever, and most importantly, does not seem to grasp the difference between a personal relationship with Jesus Christ based on serious convictions and a merely outward acceptance of the religion for political, social or other reasons.

It can be said that in the first 2 ½ centuries following Jesus’ death an outward, shallow acceptance of Christianity was virtually unknown. This is because before Constantine “endorsed“ Christianity, followers of Jesus Christ were met with intense persecution; there were no worldly benefits to becoming a Christian. As one author aptly states it: “would you die for a lie?” If it was not until The Council of Nicaea that Jesus Christ was viewed as God, and if Jesus were not really who he said he was, why was Christianity growing so rapidly, and why were hundreds of thousands willing to give their lives for the sake of Jesus Christ?

Ten major persecutions occurred, beginning with Nero in the first century and ending in the beginning of the fourth century. They are divided into two main periods: the first dating from the first century to the year 250 in which the persecutions were mostly local and did not involve great amounts of casualties. However, the second period of persecution, from 250 to Diocletian’s reign in the early fourth century was empire-wide. Christians were so vast in numbers, unified and zealous in their faith that they were viewed as a growing threat to national security, and martyrdom rose in numbers perhaps reaching hundreds of thousands. (Latourette 107)

Dan Brown states that the key to Christianity’s success was Constantine’s endorsement. However, many Christian scholars have different views:
<blockquote>''In this victory of Christianity was also something of defeat. The victory had been accomplished by compromise, compromise with the world which had crucified Jesus. (Latourette 108) …Outwardly Christianity had triumphed, [yet] many of the nominal Christians paid only lip service to their ostensible faith and remained pagans at heart.''(Latourette 97)</blockquote>
Christianity triumphed for one reason and one reason alone: Jesus Christ.
<blockquote>
''It was faith in Jesus and his resurrection which gave birth to the Christian fellowship…it was the love displayed in Christ which was, ideally and to a marked extent, the bond which held Christianity together.'' (Latourette 107)
</blockquote>
The compromise Latourette speaks of did not come without a price, and that was the loss of the purity of original, organic Christianity as nothing but the worship of Jesus Christ and a desire to emulate his character, his example of self-sacrifice, love and mercy. Jesus’ message had nothing to do with restoring the sacred feminine—but it had everything to do with restoring and redeeming all of humankind. Brown fails to grasp this basic meaning of Christianity.

In addition to getting the historical facts wrong about the origins of Christianity, Brown also gets the message of Jesus Christ wrong. In spite of his seeming desire to make the truth known, Brown contradicts himself by having the attitude that, when all is said and done, it doesn’t really matter what the Bible says, or what history says… “what matters is what you believe.” (The Da Vinci Code, the movie) In an official interview on his website, Dan Brown states:
<blockquote>
''Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.''
</blockquote>
Apparently, Dan Brown believes there are no solid truths—that Christian doctrine is malleable and can be tailored to each person’s desires. However, he is gravely mistaken; faith is not a continuum. Christianity does not involve shaky, grey areas of doubt and confusion, but is based upon a solid foundation—the rock that is Jesus Christ. Christians do not rely on their "own paths of enlightenment", instead looking to the Bible and the Holy Spirit for truth and revelation. As Martin Lloyd-Jones describes it, Christianity “is to be the acceptance of certain truths, and the working out of a reasoned, logical argument on the basis of those truths. It is not to be something vague, and general, and intangible, which varies with one’s moods and feelings.” (Why Does God Allow War?) For Christians, the “spiritual quest” simply means following Jesus Christ and seeking to know him more deeply. Perhaps the biggest myth in The Da Vinci Code is the misrepresentation of Jesus Christ.

==='''Conclusion'''===
----
Dan Brown is responsible for feeding millions of readers a pack of lies cleverly wrapped up as a historically accurate novel. Critics have sung its praises since its publication in 2001, extolling its artistic virtues as well as its historical ones.
<blockquote>
''Calling Dan Brown's latest novel, The Da Vinci Code, simply a "smart suspense novel" is like referring to Harvard as simply a pretty good university. Incorporating massive amounts of historical and academic information is no easy task, but Brown does it in such a seamless fashion that it is almost invisible within the story's natural narrative.''</blockquote> (The Mystery Reader)

In addition to the critics, audiences are also profoundly impacted by the book’s “historical” content, as Archbishop George H. Niederauer, D.D., Ph.D describes in an article:
<blockquote>
''A young friend of mine met a classmate from Catholic high school who told him that she was seriously thinking of giving up her faith after reading “The Da Vinci Code”. My friend said, “You’d give up your faith because of a novel?” She answered, “Oh, but it’s all true!''(How Dark the Con of Man)</blockquote> Oh, but it’s not true! And therein lays the tragedy: millions have been presented with a tangled, inaccurate and dishonest representation of history, of Christianity and of Jesus Christ. Dan Brown is fond of Leonardo Da Vinci’s quote, “how dark the con of man.” I must agree with Brown on this one point. How dark the con of man indeed. Every component of the “Da Vinci myth” has crumbled and fallen to pieces upon close scrutiny and examination. But the damage caused by the book is not undone…in fact, far from it. As Mark Twain said,
<blockquote>''A lie is half way round the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.'' </blockquote> If nothing else, The Da Vinci Code teaches a lesson on how susceptible people are to believing an attractively-packaged lie, and how vitally important it is that the truth is broadcasted earnestly by those who know it.

==='''Bibliography'''===
----

'''Books:'''

The Holy Bible, New International Version. International Bible Society, c1998.

Abanes, Richard. The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code: a Challenging Response to the Bestselling Novel. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, c2004.

Bock, Darrell L. Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody's Asking. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, c2004.

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, c2004.

Burstein, Daniel. Secrets of the Code: the Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code. New York, N.Y.: CDS Books in association with Squibnocket Partners, c2004.

Da Vinci, Leonardo and Suh, Anna H. Leonardo's Notebooks. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, c August 1, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: a Historian Reveals What we Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. New York: Oxford University Press, c2004.

Funk, Robert W. The Five Gospels. Harper San Francisco, c1993

Garlow, James L. and Jones, Peter. Cracking Da Vinci's code: You've Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Victor, c2004.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Volume I: Beginnings to 1500. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, c1975.

Rogak, Lisa. The Man Behind the Da Vinci Code: an Unauthorized Biography of Dan Brown. Kansas City, Mo.: Andrews McMeel Pub., c2005.

Welborn, Amy. De-coding Da Vinci: the Facts behind the Fiction of the Da Vinci Code. Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, c2004.

'''Articles:'''

Niederauer, Archbishop George H. “How Dark the Con of Man” jesusdecoded.com

Olson, Carl E. and Miesel, Sandra “Facts vs. Fiction in 'The Da Vinci Code'” Plugged In Magazine c2006

Miesel, Sandra “Dismantling The Da Vinci Code.” Crisis Magazine (September 2003)

Van Biema, David. Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner? Time Magazine, Monday, Aug. 11, 2003

'''Internet:'''

Amazon.com “The Malleus Maleficarum of Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer.” December 6, 2004. Available www.amazon.com

Blogcritics.org “On Da Vinci Mania” by Shane S-T. May 29, 2006.
Available http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/29/120528.php

Brown, Dan. “An Interview with Dan Brown.” The Official Website of Dan Brown. Available http://www.danbrown.com

Brown, Dan. “Secrets: Bizarre True Facts from the Da Vinci Code” The Official Website of Dan Brown. Available http://www.danbrown.com

Esaak, Shelley “A Guide to Leonardo and His Art in The Da Vinci Code - Questions and Answers” Art History about.com

Kirby, Peter. “Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism.” Early Christian Writings. Online.
Internet, c2003. Available ttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics

Religionfacts.com “The Council of Nicea and The Da Vinci Code.”
Available http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm

Starbird, Margaret “The Little Mermaid and the Archetype of the Lost Bride.” C. 1999 Available: http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/littlemermaid.html

'''TV Shows/DVDs:'''

“Beyond the Da Vinci Code.” History Channel Documentary. History Channel. March 13, 2006.

“The Real Da Vinci Code.” Discovery Times Channel Special. Discovery Times Channel. March 4, 2006.

'''Other:'''

Schlafly, Andrew. World History Fourth Lecture – Ancient History. October 2006.