Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Snoopy2

2022-09-19T21:17:50Z

Snoopy2: data

{{Welcome}}
If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on [[Ropen‎]], you might want to try using <code><nowiki><ref>Reference text here</ref></nowiki></code> to add the citation. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Punctuation ==

Favorite movie: "The Wrong Friend"
Favorite Book: "Gray is the color of hope"

== Punctuation ==

Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
J-I tp.p.g.[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/garelli_fs_tadmor_1991.pdf] n.n. saa [https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37115745/T.P._III_-_738_Borders.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510949997&Signature=wOoLlPDcmY308amEP9h1HdZU0NE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBorders_and_Districts_in_Descriptions_of.pdf] dk.e.eth[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/a-new-low-for-evolutionary-ethics/] z.m[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTikeTomelY]
phlogist[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/][https://www.thecollegefix.com/i-was-forced-out-of-my-phd-program-because-of-my-open-faith-in-jesus-christ-heres-my-story/][https://idthefuture.com/1649/]

== ref ==
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin
by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.

== suggestion ==

Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments? -- unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]

:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter ==
watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79foBIrar4]
I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).

The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia ==
see
Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky.
All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go.
Any practical suggestions are welcome.

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again==
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys:
instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it?
No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
:What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow ''anyone'' to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: [[Conservapedia:Edit]]. You have not been blocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
::Night mode is a nuisance, so if that is what you are talking about, I do apologize. If you stay around and make productive edits, you may be enabled to bypass it and edit during the EDT night. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).

Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence
By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 [https://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-researcher-establishes-link-between-threats-and-abuse-cases-domestic-partner-violence]

This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) [http://www.cdar.uky.edu/CoerciveControl/docs/Human%20Trafficking%20in%20Kentucky.pdf]

Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it.
Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.

Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't

{{unsigned|Snoopy2}}
[[Christianity Today]] If you doubt Darwinism, the evangelical left will RELENTLESSly concur with Richard Dawkins and insist you're insane or wicked (though he'd rather not think about that).
Don't go that far. Just endorse Intelligent Design.

:Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

[[Christianity Today]] If you doubt Darwinism, the evangelical left will RELENTLESSly concur with Richard Dawkins and insist you're insane or wicked (though he'd rather not think about that).
Don't go that far. Just endorse Intelligent Design.

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:29:53Z

Snoopy2: Matti Leisola

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/]</ref> Read also this review of Matti Leisola's book "Heretic" <ref>Four Darwin Heretics: A Reader’s Roundup, April 13, 2018, April 13, 2018[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/]</ref>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:28:17Z

Snoopy2: Matti Leisola

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/]</ref> Read also this review of Matti Leisola's book "Heretic" Four Darwin Heretics: A Reader’s Roundup, April 13, 2018, April 13, 2018<ref>https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/</ref>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:27:12Z

Snoopy2: Matti Leisola

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/]</ref> Read also this review of Matti Leisola's book "Heretic".</ref>Four Darwin Heretics: A Reader’s Roundup, April 13, 2018, April 13, 2018<ref>https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/</ref>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:25:04Z

Snoopy2: Matti Leisola

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/] Read also this review of Matti Leisola's book "Heretic".</ref>Four Darwin Heretics: A Reader’s Roundup, April 13, 2018, April 13, 2018<ref>https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/</ref>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:19:36Z

Snoopy2: /* Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable */

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/]</ref>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Falsifiability of evolution

2022-09-19T20:18:52Z

Snoopy2: Phlogiston

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

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a frequently used criterion in determining whether a particular hypothesis is [[science|scientific]] or conjecture. A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it is logically ''possible'' that it could be proven wrong by experiment or observation. This does not mean that the test or observation must be feasible or logistically possible with our current technology, simply that a logically consistent test or observation must be conceivable.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' Conversely, just because a proposition is ''false'' does not mean it is ''falsifiable''.

This concept falls under the category of [[Philosophy of Science]] and is a useful tool in determining the scientific validity of a hypothesis, although not a complete test in and of itself.

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

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible pink unicorn in my room." While the proposition that the unicorn is in the room is testable (by methods other than sight) because said unicorn is invisible, it is impossible to detect colour, and the hypothesis that said unicorn is pink can not rise above conjecture.

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

A [[scientific theory]] seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of [[natural selection]], observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.

* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

=== Proposed Tests and Observations ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949,<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}}</ref> J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

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

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

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed:

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

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

Other proposed falsifications include:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html TalkOrigins Claim CA211]</ref>

* The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

* The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics separately (a process known as [[convergent evolution]]) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

* Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

* Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution] Prediction 1.3</ref> The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref>

The great majority of Darwinist scientists have never examined the evidence against the theory. Watch the example of distinguished scientist Günter Bechly showing what often happens if they do listen to the other side.<ref>A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design,
DiscoveryScienceNews, Published on Feb 13, 2017.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM]</ref> Listen as Ray Bohlin talks with Michael Behe about how German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly became interested in intelligent design.<ref>Discovering Design at a Darwin Day Exhibition, Discovery Institute, posted on January 28, 2017.[https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/01/discovering-design-at-a-darwin-day-exhibition/]</ref>

=== Evolutionists asserting that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they claim to have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists. The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola stated Darwinism to be the modern equivalent of the Phlogiston Theory that was believed for decades by explaining away all the contrary evidence. <ref>The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing, September 14, 2019, Evolution News[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/the-modern-day-phlogiston-darwinism-explains-everything-and-nothing/]</ref/>

[[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
}}

Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

{{QuoteBox|And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.<ref>Popper(1976) 171-172</ref>}}

Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:<ref>"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355</ref>

{{QuoteBox|When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.}}

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted",<ref>Popper, 1978, pp.344-345</ref> this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:<ref>
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980</ref>

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.<ref name="popper"/> In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.<ref name="popper"/> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name="popper"/>

In ''Nature''Birch and Ehrlich wrote in 1967:<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352).}} Ehrlich and Birch presented many objections to distinct hypotheses explaining certain aspects of contemporary evolutionary science, but not to the overarching theory itself. A precis set in bold type at the beginning of the article states:
{{QuoteBox|While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions.}}

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

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:<ref>[http://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82Whitten.pdf Facts Are Not Everything in Science: Max Whitten, Issues magazine, May 2008]</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the
theory of evolution.}}
It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

==See also==
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Darwinism]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

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

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

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Science]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2022-09-19T19:57:17Z

Snoopy2: coppedge

[[File:Moon2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|"Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity ([[Roche limit]]) at less than a quarter of their supposed age."<ref name="Age of the earth">[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref> see: [https://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth] ]]
It takes only one counterexample to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]]. Most of the "evidence" for an Old Earth is based on claims that lack [[falsifiability]], such as [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law. If each of the following 64 '''''counterexamples''''' to an Old Earth were to have merely a 10% chance of being valid, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only one-tenth of 1%. In other words, '''''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99.9%'''''.<ref>The same analysis could be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 proofs of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (See [https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

Much additional scientific evidence points to a [[Young earth creationism|young]] [[Age of the Earth|age of the earth]] and the universe, and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published articles entitled ''[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'' and [https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] both of which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth. Further arguments can be found in the article [[arguments for a recent creation]]

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely asserting an old Earth is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Atheists are also motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to (implausibly) be billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== History ===
[[File:Sphinx pyramid.jpg|thumb|200px|Although frequently cited by Old Earth supporters against a young earth, [[New Chronology|revised and well-supported Egyptian chronology]] actually provides strong evidence in favor of a young Earth.]]
# The oldest direct evidence of life—written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc.—is no older than about 3,000 B.C.<ref>"The sword did in fact look very similar to those found in the Royal Palace of Arslantepe (Eastern Anatolia), dating back to five thousand years ago and considered to be the oldest swords in the world." [https://www.unive.it/pag/16584/?tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=8707&cHash=8aefaf0abbc21b8f74850ae791b09ad7]</ref> and certainly younger than 4,000 B.C., the approximate date of origin of the Earth, based on a straightforward reading of the [[Bible]]. While adherents to a belief in an old earth claim of artifacts existing further back than 4,000 B.C., those people come to their conclusions due to their presuppositions (i.e. the lens through which they see the world) that evolution is true, that the Earth is old, and that humans were originally dumb and became more intelligent as time went on.<ref>Mortenson, Terry (July 7, 2015). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/trillions-of-artifacts/ Trillions of “Artifacts”—Who’s Really Got the Problem?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref><ref>Climer, Phillip (May 23, 2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/archaeology-and-the-bible/ Archaeology and the Bible]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref>
# Over 270 cultures have flood legends that distinctly resemble the biblical flood account.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/legends-of-the-flood/ Legends of the Flood]. ''Answers in Genesis''. January 30, 2014. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>White, Monty (March 29, 2007). [https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/ Flood Legends]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> While critics like to say the biblical flood account is descended from other stories, in reality, it is the other way around, as the biblical flood account is far superior to any flood legend in multiple ways.<ref>Lacey, Troy & Anderson jr, Lee (October 1, 2013). [https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/the-genesis-flood-not-just-another-legend/ The Genesis Flood—Not Just Another Legend]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> Creation legends also exist, but once again, the biblical account is superior.<ref name="AncientMyths">Ham, Steve (March 29, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/creation-myths/is-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/ Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Noah, his sons, and his further descendants mentioned in the Bible are found and named in numerous cultures and there is much extra-biblical evidence for their existence, showing that they were real people who made a real impact.<ref name="Dispersion">Hodge, Bodie (August 19, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/was-the-dispersion-at-babel-a-real-event/ Chapter 28 - Was the Dispersion at Babel a Real Event?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> There are royal genealogies in Europe that trace their family lines back to Noah.<ref name="Dispersion"/>
# Ancient cultures all over the world built [[ziggurat]]-like structures, such as the [[Egyptian]]s, [[Babylonia]]ns, and [[Mesoamerica]]ns. This is strong evidence that they originated from one area and that the [[Tower of Babel]] was a real, ziggurat-shaped tower.<ref name="Dispersion"/>
# In history, the closer one gets to Babel, geographically speaking, the earlier the civilizations in that area first developed, giving strong evidence that all civilizations were originally from Babel and were dispersed from that location all over the Earth.<ref name="Dispersion"/><ref name="SecretsLandis">Landis, Don (2015). [https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/secrets-ancient-man/?sku=10-2-463 ''Secrets of Ancient Man'']. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518663.</ref> Even secular historians accept this<ref>http://www.ancient.eu/image/1068/</ref> and call Sumer the "cradle of civilization".<ref>Mark, Joshua J. (April 28, 2011). [http://www.ancient.eu/sumer/ Sumer]. ''Ancient History Encyclopedia''. Retrieved September 5, 2016.</ref><ref>Mark, Joshua J. (September 2, 2009). [http://www.ancient.eu/Mesopotamia/ Mesopotamia]. "'Ancient History Encyclopedia''. Retrieved September 5, 2016.</ref>
# The Sumerian King List is remarkably similar to the biblical genealogy in Genesis 5. There is a very close correlation between the two lists (if one excludes Adam and Noah in the Bible), the flood is mentioned, and the kings all have long life-spans, providing strong evidence that the Sumerians recognized the history recorded in the Bible as fact.<ref name="AncientMyths"/>
# While many evolutionists point to [[Egyptian chronology|Egyptian history]] (which, according to them, dates back long before the biblical creation and flood dates) as proof against a young Earth, a growing number of academics are recognizing that many of the traditional sources for Egyptian history are both inaccurate and misinterpreted, and [[New Chronology|revised dates for Egyptian history]] align remarkably well with biblical history.<ref>McClellan, Matt (August 24, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/ancient-egyptian-chronology-and-the-book-of-genesis/ Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis]. ''Answers Research Journal''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (July 22, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/ Chapter 24 - Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (April 1, 2008). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/dating-the-pyramids/ Dating the Pyramids]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> Additionally, radiocarbon dating has given additional evidence that the Egyptian civilization began more recently than originally thought.<ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (September 19, 2013). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/radiocarbon-dating-shortens-the-timeline-for-ancient-egypt/ Radiocarbon Dating Shortens the Timeline for Ancient Egypt]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Because of their worldview, evolutionists believe that ancient man was not as intelligent as today and did not possess superior technology. However, many archaeological findings in numerous ancient civilizations have proven otherwise—that ancient man was very intelligent, possibly even more so than modern day society, as well as more technologically advanced in some ways.<ref name="SecretsLandis"/><ref>Landis, Don (2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/genius-ancient-man/?sku=10-2-423& ''The Genius of Ancient Man'']. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890516775.</ref><ref>Ham, Ken (December 31, 2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-technology/geniuses-not-brutes/ Geniuses, Not Brutes!]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Many different cultures throughout history have legends and realistic accounts from historians of dragons. There is very strong evidence that [[dinosaur]]s were alive and a very real part of ancient cultures (and even some more recent ones), affirming a young Earth and the biblical account of origins.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (October 1, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragon-legends-truths-behind-the-tales/ Dragon Legends—Truths Behind the Tales]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragons-fact-or-fable/ Dragons: Fact or Fable?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> In fact, there have been some reports of dinosaurs living in the remote jungles of [[Africa]] today.<ref>Ham, Ken (October 25, 2007). [https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/ Chapter 12 - What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# There is a striking similarity in the way diverse, worldwide cultures see [[constellations]]. In very diverse cultures, the constellations that the people see are the same, and the meanings of many are the same, including the Big and Little Dippers, showing that people had to have developed them together, rather than on opposite directions of the globe.<ref name="Nelson">Nelson, Brooke C. (October 5, 2016). [https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/do-big-and-little-dipper-support-bible-timeline/ Do the Big and Little Dipper Support the Bible’s Timeline?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved October 16, 2016.</ref><ref name="Henry">Henry, Jonathan F. (December 2008). [https://creation.com/constellations-a-legacy-of-babel Constellations: legacy of the dispersion from Babel]. ''Creation.com'' (taken from ''Journal of Creation 22(3):93–100''). Retrieved October 16, 2016.</ref> Academics (including secular ones) have been able to trace back, through the [[Precession of the equinoxes|precession]] of the Earth, when the constellations were developed by man, and the dates found have been, roughly speaking, between 2800 BC and 2100 BC, right in line with the date of the dispersion at Babel.<ref name="Nelson"/><ref name="Henry"/> Additionally, it has also been found that the latitude of where the developers of the constellations lived was, roughly speaking, between 30 and 42 degrees latitude, again in line with the locations of Ararat and Babel.<ref name="Nelson"/><ref name="Henry"/>
# It has been well-documented that people in the past vastly exceeded modern humans physically and mentally.<ref>Pierce, Larry (April 5, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/what-were-early-post-flood-people-like/ What Were Early Post-Flood People Like?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 5, 2017.</ref>

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that means it cannot be more than 1.37 billion years old, much less than the often claimed 4.5 billion years.<ref>[https://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth]</ref> In fact, this assumes the moon would star off touching the earth and so within the [[Roche limit]], which would not be possible without causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars, and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age that is too young to have generated the tail, and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The oldest star in the universe is only 6000 light years away from Earth, precisely as predicted by the [[Bible]] and a Young Earth model.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20210514201334/http://astrobio.net/also-in-news/the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe/</ref>
# The surface of [[Pluto]] was found during the [[New Horizons mission]] to have far fewer craters than expected, and it was found to have a nitrogen atmosphere that is leaking away at too fast a rate for it to be millions or billions of years old.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/plutos-young-surface/ Pluto’s Young Surface]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''Answers Magazine''). October 1, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2016.</ref> Both of these evidences provide strong evidence for a young universe.
# The planet Venus has a young surface.<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/Venus#Young_Surface</ref>

=== Biology and genetics ===

# Blue-eyed people are known to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Moreover, the number of blue-eyed people is steadily diminishing, further suggesting that humans have not been in existence long.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html</ref>
# "[https://creation.com/bugs-in-brine DNA in “ancient” fossils]. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old calls into question the age calculation, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence would measure at ridiculous heights, if humans were even tens of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly-changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|"[https://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine, and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the possibility that these species are millions and billions of years old."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>]]
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# "[https://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>
# The age of onset balding or of graying of hair is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding. "Popular" leftist YouTuber Ethan Klein of h3h3 Productions has had graying hair since his late 20s.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life. "Someone born in 1990 would have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer than at the same age had they been born in 1950, according to researchers at the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute."<ref>http://www.click2houston.com/health/born-in-the-90s-your-colon-cancer-risk-could-be-rising_</ref>
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth theory true, the human population would show much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race;<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&curid=100935&diff=1874144&oldid=1874143#:~:text=%2B-,https%3A//www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012%2D03%2D02%2Dchimps%2Dshow%2Dmuch%2Dgreater%2Dgenetic%2Ddiversity%2Dhumans,-%2B</ref> this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans have descended from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of numerous deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>
# Even evolutionist studies have shown (despite the dating errors) that the vast majority of species on Earth arose around the same time and that genetic boundaries exist between the various animal kinds.<ref>Multiple references:
*Hood, Marlowe (May 28, 2018). [https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution]. ''Phys.org''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
*Ham, Ken (June 7, 2018). [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/study-90-percent-of-species-have-recent-origin/ Study: 90% of Species Have a Recent Origin]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
*Davis, Billy; Jordahl, Steve (May 31, 2018). [https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/05/31/when-your-dna-research-pokes-holes-in-darwin When your DNA research pokes holes in Darwin]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.</ref>
# Evolutionist studies have found that all male humans have the same Y-[[chromosome]] while females have greater chromosomal diversity.<ref>Stanford University. "Wars and clan structure may explain a strange biological event 7,000 years ago." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 May 2018. < https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180529185356.htm >.</ref> This is in line with the Genesis account, which shows that only Noah's Y-chromosome lineage survived the flood, being passed along to his sons and beyond, while seven or eight x-chromosome lineages survived.<ref>Cater, Robert W. (May 11, 2010). [https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics]. ''Creation Ministries International'. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref>
# The sulfurization of organic matter, once thought to take tens of thousands of years, has been found to only take hours to complete.<ref>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830180058.htm Faster than we thought: Sulfurization of organic material: New research is changing our understanding of the carbon cycle]. ''ScienceDaily'' (from ''Washington University in St. Louis''). August 30, 2018. Retrieved September 16, 2018.</ref>
# An analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that humans and most animal kinds came from common ancestors that lived later than 4000 BC, indicating a recent creation and the existence of a genetic "bottleneck" resulting from the [[Great Flood]].<ref>Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (July 27, 2018). [https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/animal-genetics/hundreds-thousands-species-few-thousand-years/ Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?] ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 28, 2018. From a non-creationist perspective that still indicates a surprisingly young earth:
*Guillen, Michael (November 24, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve Did a mysterious extinction event precede Adam and Eve?] ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 28, 2018.</ref>

=== Geology ===

Geological counterexamples to an Old Earth include:
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|250px|"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time).".<ref name="Age of the earth"/> See: [https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] ]]
# Based on erosion rates, [[Niagara Falls]] is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by [[atheist]]ic scientists who believe in an [[Old Earth]].<ref>The theory of an [[Ice Age]] to carve Niagara Falls less than 15,000 years ago is inconsistent with its shape and with much other geological evidence.</ref>
# Sedimentary rock strata covering large areas seldom contain more than one major sediment type, i.e. sandstone, claystone, or limestone. How would it have been possible for just one type of sediment to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another type and so on? Obviously, the sediments were not deposited over thousands of years each, but were contained in moving waters and sorted out during major flooding. This kind of sorting has been proved by Guy Berthault's experiments and by observation of flood deposits in Colorado in 1965, flood deposits at Mount St. Helens in the 1980s and others. John Baumgardner et al showed that megatsunamis over 2 km high would have been capable of rapidly eroding undersea continental slopes and depositing it over large continental areas in weeks to months. An asteroid swarm would have been capable of causing such tsunamis by tidal action. See Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective GUY BERTHAULT <ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_2/j12_2_213-217.pdf</ref> Also <ref>http://sedimentology.fr</ref> and Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History <ref>https://www.socalsem.edu/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history</ref>
# The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun—far hotter than atheists thought—and such heat would have dissipated and the radioactivity decayed if the earth were old.<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915</ref>
# The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years;<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3693932/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earths-magnetic-field-weakening/</ref> extrapolating backwards does not permit an Old Earth.
# [[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap.” E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time).<ref name="Age of the earth"/> See: [https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth].
# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php Meanwhile, there is a claim that the global risk of big earthquakes has not increased over the last hundred years [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Peter M. Shearer, Philip B. Stark: ''Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased''] [http://www.pnas.org PNAS], Dec 19, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118525109</ref> "Researchers are left scratching their heads, trying to understand possible reasons for the uptick in seismic activity in Oklahoma."<ref>http://journalrecord.com/2014/06/16/stc-mining-in-ok-eqs-energy/#ixzz3BKBRvmOW</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed despite a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not have existed for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which would be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have been reached long ago where water (essential to life) became too contaminated for life to continue.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass—denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it—suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, baffling Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up in the next decade.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>
# Erosion of rock is far faster than atheist geology previously thought [http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]. Secular science now admits that mountains don't last long, but remain strangely silent on the obvious implication. Also in the same article: extra soil created by erosion scrubs greenhouse gas CO2 from atmosphere.
# Contrary to evolutionary assumptions that diamonds formed in conditions where there was no water, researchers collected diamond samples from deep within the Earth's crust and found in 2018 ice embedded in the diamonds.<ref>Gramling, Carolyn (March 8, 2018). [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/diamonds-reveal-sign-deepest-water-known-inside-earth Diamonds reveal sign of the deepest water known inside Earth]. ''ScienceNews''. Retrieved March 19, 2018.</ref> This is consistent with the biblical accounts of the creation and the global flood, including 2 Peter 3:5–6.

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] also provides scores of anomalies, which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref> An accomplished author,<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
Corliss has written 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> ''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging."<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

=== Paleontology ===
#Recent discoveries of surviving soft dinosaur tissue upset the Darwinist claim that they became extinct 65 million years ago.<ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraobital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica 115:603-608.</ref><ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2014. Light and electron microscope study of soft bone osteocytes from a Triceratops horridus supraorbitalhorn. Microscopy & Microanalysis (Hartford, CT).</ref> View Armitage's presentation of his results at the Southern California Academy of Sciences meetings in 2013 and 2014.<ref>Mark H Armitage - Report Of Soft Tissues In A Triceratops Horn (conglomeration of talks presented at the Southern California Academy of Sciences meetings in 2013 and 2014).[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDV_MTQSxg]</ref> A number of other peer-reviewed papers found similar results.<ref>[http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material Documented by Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio]</ref> David Coppedge provided additional recent information on this unanswered challenge to Darwinism. <ref>David Coppedge - Incontrovertible Dinosaur DNA Reported, September 28, 2021, Creation Evolution Headlines [https://crev.info/2021/09/dinosaur-dna/]</ref>
#Fossils have been found, such as footprints, showing that dinosaurs and mammals lived together at the same time.<ref>Borg, Julie (February 9, 2018). [http://www.bpnews.net/50342/dinosaur-party-or-evidence-of-the-flood Dinosaur party or evidence of the flood?] ''Baptist Press''. Retrieved February 22, 2018.</ref>
#Watch Kevin Anderson's presentation on dinosaur soft tissue.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pM_xHEIjW8 Dr. Kevin Anderson: Echos of the Jurassic]</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[https://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [https://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Highly recommended resources for more in-depth information and evidence ==

=== Websites ===

*[https://answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] official website
*[https://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research] official website
*[https://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International] official website

=== Books ===

*Virtually any book concerning creation and [[Christian apologetics]] published by [http://www.masterbooks.com/ MasterBooks]
*Ham, Ken; Hodge, Bodie (2019). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/glass-house/ Glass House: Shattering the Myth of Evolution]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683441564.
*Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.
*Mortenson, Terry, ed. (2016). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/searching-adam/ Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890519752.
*Landis, Don (2015). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/secrets-ancient-man/ Secrets of Ancient Man]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518663.
*Boyd, Steven W.; Snelling, Andrew A. ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/grappling-chronology-genesis-flood/?sku=10-3-129 Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood: Navigating the Flow of Time in Biblical Narrative]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890517093.
*Hodge, Bodie (2013). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/tower-babel-book/ Tower of Babel: The Cultural History of Our Ancestors]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890517154.
*Landis, Don (2012). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/genius-ancient-man/ The Genius of Ancient Man]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890516775.
*Snelling, Andrew A. (2010). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/earths-catastrophic-past/?sku=10-3-124& Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518748.
*[[Walt Brown|Brown, Walt]] (2008). ''[[In the Beginning|In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]] (8th Edition)''. Center for Scientific Creation; 8th edition (December 1, 2008). ISBN: 978-1878026095.
*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

===Films===
*''[[Is Genesis History?]]'' (2017; [https://isgenesishistory.com/ website])
*''Genesis: Paradise Lost'' (2017; [https://genesismovie.com/ website])

=== Other recommended links ===
*[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]
*[https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/most-compelling-scientific-evidence-of-young-earth/ What Is the Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth?], by Dr. Terry Mortenson at [[Answers in Genesis]]. Originally published on February 27, 2006.
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/seven-reasons-why-we-should-not-accept-millions-of-years/ Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years] by Dr. Terry Mortenson at [[Answers in Genesis]]. Originally published on July 17, 2006.
*[https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/ The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth], Answers in Genesis, October 1, 2012.
*[https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ Six Evidences of a Young Earth], Answers in Genesis.
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Young_earth_evidence Young earth evidence] on [[CreationWiki]]

== See also ==
*[[Literalist Bible chronology]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
*[[Arguments for a recent creation]]
*[[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800]]

== Footnotes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

{{Counterexamples}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Plesiosaur

2022-07-08T17:30:01Z

Snoopy2: cpc

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref> Malcom Bowden found additional evidence against the shark theory <ref>[http://www.mbowden.info/plsfin13.htm"THE JAPANESE CARCASS: A PLESIOSAUR-TYPE ANIMAL!" Creation Science Movement pamphlet.</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"

==Further Reading==

The Japanese original scientific investigation "Collected Papers on the Carcass of an Unidentified Animal Trawled off New Zealand by the Zuiyo-maru, ed. T SASAKI - La mer, 1978" is available online.<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/61737787/Collected_papers_on_the_carcass_of_an_unidentified_animal_trawled_off_New_Zealand_by_the_Zuiyo-maru20200110-28269-adbbmh-libre.pdf?1578645756=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCollected_papers_on_the_carcass_of_an_un.pdf&Expires=1657304528&Signature=RnEDfhJe2t1BfedzhXUNahKp0GWWgM~W-fPGVSEr51SzIVZ77pORc59GTeeld4ZwspomImksEK1igQ0-EgZCtmygLvFd0x9IxNQvUiODcV307uQv~ZssnhBPOX1hHXZD6E2j3vqgezUK5KKjvckV5RNAx0Ho4ug4wad8BQ5rCA7ZJVmCt8hYfs0vagG3up6ZQLzzxY3FJahKP70ospUIXly9Nus9oTePVJK2budlMGQ0vQxgZHPRRpylJ6Ouxygr5GhU-4GaLxRRTmsx5AVnNDtoJQsuQ87iKFf06nAOOegF~mLx0odO9GKeKiJB-qnJiHyNVGZfbE~as3Y3U8udlA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=7</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-07-08T17:27:36Z

Snoopy2: cpc

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref> Malcom Bowden found additional evidence against the shark theory <ref>[http://www.mbowden.info/plsfin13.htm"THE JAPANESE CARCASS: A PLESIOSAUR-TYPE ANIMAL!" Creation Science Movement pamphlet.</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"

The Japanese original scientific investigation "Collected Papers on the Carcass of an Unidentified Animal Trawled off New Zealand by the Zuiyo-maru, ed. T SASAKI - La mer, 1978" is available online.<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/61737787/Collected_papers_on_the_carcass_of_an_unidentified_animal_trawled_off_New_Zealand_by_the_Zuiyo-maru20200110-28269-adbbmh-libre.pdf?1578645756=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCollected_papers_on_the_carcass_of_an_un.pdf&Expires=1657304528&Signature=RnEDfhJe2t1BfedzhXUNahKp0GWWgM~W-fPGVSEr51SzIVZ77pORc59GTeeld4ZwspomImksEK1igQ0-EgZCtmygLvFd0x9IxNQvUiODcV307uQv~ZssnhBPOX1hHXZD6E2j3vqgezUK5KKjvckV5RNAx0Ho4ug4wad8BQ5rCA7ZJVmCt8hYfs0vagG3up6ZQLzzxY3FJahKP70ospUIXly9Nus9oTePVJK2budlMGQ0vQxgZHPRRpylJ6Ouxygr5GhU-4GaLxRRTmsx5AVnNDtoJQsuQ87iKFf06nAOOegF~mLx0odO9GKeKiJB-qnJiHyNVGZfbE~as3Y3U8udlA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=7</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-07-08T17:11:43Z

Snoopy2: bowd

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref> Malcom Bowden found additional evidence against the shark theory <ref>[http://www.mbowden.info/plsfin13.htm"THE JAPANESE CARCASS: A PLESIOSAUR-TYPE ANIMAL!" Creation Science Movement pamphlet.</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-07-08T17:10:58Z

Snoopy2: bowd

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref> Malcom Bowden found additional evidence against the shark theory <ref>[http://www.mbowden.info/plsfin13.htm"THE JAPANESE CARCASS: A PLESIOSAUR-TYPE ANIMAL!"Creation Science Movement pamphlet.</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-07-08T17:09:50Z

Snoopy2: bowd

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref> Malcom Bowden found additional evidence against the shark theory <ref>[http://www.mbowden.info/plsfin13.htm"THE JAPANESE CARCASS: A PLESIOSAUR-TYPE ANIMAL!"Creation Science Movement pamphlet"</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Mokele-mbembe

2022-06-27T23:35:01Z

Snoopy2: q

''' Mokele-mbembe''' is a possible living [[dinosaur]]. It is classified as a sauropod<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB>{{cite web|url=http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/326/|title= Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur?|author=David Catchpoole|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Creationontheweb.com}}</ref><ref name=Mokelembembe>{{cite web|url=http://www.mokelembembe.com|title=Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Mokelembembe.com}}</ref><ref name=ICR>{{cite web|url=https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=+Mokele-mbembe|title= In Search Of the Congo Dinosaur|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Institute for Creation Research}}</ref> and reportedly lives in the pools and swamps near the rivers of the [[Likouala Region]] in the [[Republic of the Congo]] (ROC).<ref name=Mokelembembe/> There have been numerous reports of sightings for more than 100 years.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/> Noted Congolese [[biologist]] Marcellin Agnagna, who was in an expedition to Lake Tele in 1983, said:

{{cquote|At approximately 2:30pm, … [we] were then able to observe a strange animal, with a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. … The animal was located at about 300 metres from the edge of the lake, and we were able to adv[a]nce about 60 metres in the shallow water, placing us at a distance of about 240 metres from the animal, which had become aware of our presence and was looking around as if to determine the source of the noise. Dinkoumbou [a local villager] continued to shout with fear. The f[r]ontal part of the animal was brown, while the back part of the neck appeared black and shone in the sunlight. The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. It then submerged completely, … no further sighting of the animal took place. It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region [an area of swampland about the same size as Florida]. Its total length from head to back visible above the waterline was estimated at 5 metres.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/>}}

==Anatomy==
According to the available data, Mokele-mbembe has a long [[neck]] and [[tail]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/> Reported length of the animal is approximately 5 to 10 meters, the length of the neck is approximately 1.6 to 3.3 meters<ref name=Trueauthority>{{cite web|url=http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htm|title=Mokele-mbembe|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Trueauthority.com}}</ref> and the estimated length of the tail is between 1.6 and 3.3 meters. It has reddish-brown skin with no body hair. It is generally believed that the animal is unable to produce any [[sound]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Behavior==
The animal lives most of the time beneath the surface of the water except when it eats or travels to another part of the wetland. Mokele-mbembe reportedly uses the lakes in the region as a crossing path to go from one river to another river. Some have theorized that the animal does not tolerate the plant-eating [[mammal]] [[hippopotamus]] (''Hippopotamus amphibius'') and kill them on sight, but it does not use them as food. It have been observed that hippopotamuses cannot be found in the region where Mokele-mbembe lives. There are further reports that the animals sometimes capsize boats and kill passengers by biting and hitting them with tail; however it does not eat humans.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Diet==
Mokele-mbembe is apparently a [[herbivore]] and Malombo plant (''Landolphia mannii'' and ''Landolphia owariensis'') is the reported diet of the animal.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Expeditions==
* RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tY5SYt90Zs RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984]</ref>
* Roy P. Mackal: Congo in 1980 and 1981.<ref>Roy P. Mackal, A living dinosaur? : in search of Mokele-mbembe. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1987.</ref>
* Three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Video from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012!<ref>Great fIlm footage of three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Lots of footage from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012![https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjSdKaDv7P4]</ref>
* Monster Quest expedition: original broadcast in 2009.<ref>[http://monsterquestreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/monsterquest-search-for-last-living.html Monster Quest expedition]</ref>
* Bill Gibbons and David Woetzel: Cameroon in 2000.<ref>"Behemoth or Bust: An Expedition into Cameroon Investigating Reports of a Sauropod Dinosaur",''Creation Journal 15:2'', August, 2001, pp. 62–68.[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/behemoth-or-bust/]</ref>
* Cryptozoology leader Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons.<ref>[http://www.cryptozoonews.com/mokele09/ Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons]</ref>
* The History Channel Expedition in 2010.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeBEOnrToSk My
MonsterQuest: DINOSAUR-LIKE Creature Frightens African Jungle Inhabitants 2021(The History Channel Expedition)]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* Mokele-mbembe 1992 footage in BBC's "Congo 2 Spirits of the Forest", 2001. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMQbxNG_xk]

[[Category:Cryptozoology]]

Mokele-mbembe

2022-06-27T23:19:31Z

Snoopy2: /* Expeditions */

''' Mokele-mbembe''' is a possible living [[dinosaur]]. It is classified as a sauropod<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB>{{cite web|url=http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/326/|title= Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur?|author=David Catchpoole|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Creationontheweb.com}}</ref><ref name=Mokelembembe>{{cite web|url=http://www.mokelembembe.com|title=Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Mokelembembe.com}}</ref><ref name=ICR>{{cite web|url=https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=+Mokele-mbembe|title= In Search Of the Congo Dinosaur|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Institute for Creation Research}}</ref> and reportedly lives in the pools and swamps near the rivers of the [[Likouala Region]] in the [[Republic of the Congo]] (ROC).<ref name=Mokelembembe/> There have been numerous reports of sightings for more than 100 years.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/> Noted Congolese [[biologist]] Marcellin Agnagna, who was in an expedition to Lake Tele in 1983, said:

{{cquote|At approximately 2:30pm, … [we] were then able to observe a strange animal, with a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. … The animal was located at about 300 metres from the edge of the lake, and we were able to adv[a]nce about 60 metres in the shallow water, placing us at a distance of about 240 metres from the animal, which had become aware of our presence and was looking around as if to determine the source of the noise. Dinkoumbou [a local villager] continued to shout with fear. The f[r]ontal part of the animal was brown, while the back part of the neck appeared black and shone in the sunlight. The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. It then submerged completely, … no further sighting of the animal took place. It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region [an area of swampland about the same size as Florida]. Its total length from head to back visible above the waterline was estimated at 5 metres.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/>}}

==Anatomy==
According to the available data, Mokele-mbembe has a long [[neck]] and [[tail]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/> Reported length of the animal is approximately 5 to 10 meters, the length of the neck is approximately 1.6 to 3.3 meters<ref name=Trueauthority>{{cite web|url=http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htm|title=Mokele-mbembe|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Trueauthority.com}}</ref> and the estimated length of the tail is between 1.6 and 3.3 meters. It has reddish-brown skin with no body hair. It is generally believed that the animal is unable to produce any [[sound]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Behavior==
The animal lives most of the time beneath the surface of the water except when it eats or travels to another part of the wetland. Mokele-mbembe reportedly uses the lakes in the region as a crossing path to go from one river to another river. Some have theorized that the animal does not tolerate the plant-eating [[mammal]] [[hippopotamus]] (''Hippopotamus amphibius'') and kill them on sight, but it does not use them as food. It have been observed that hippopotamuses cannot be found in the region where Mokele-mbembe lives. There are further reports that the animals sometimes capsize boats and kill passengers by biting and hitting them with tail; however it does not eat humans.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Diet==
Mokele-mbembe is apparently a [[herbivore]] and Malombo plant (''Landolphia mannii'' and ''Landolphia owariensis'') is the reported diet of the animal.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Expeditions==
* RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tY5SYt90Zs RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984]</ref>
* Roy P. Mackal: Congo in 1980 and 1981.<ref>Roy P. Mackal, A living dinosaur? : in search of Mokele-mbembe. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1987.</ref>
* Three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Video from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012!<ref>Great fIlm footage of three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Lots of footage from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012![https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjSdKaDv7P4]</ref>
* Monster Quest expedition: original broadcast in 2009.<ref>[http://monsterquestreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/monsterquest-search-for-last-living.html Monster Quest expedition]</ref>
* Bill Gibbons and David Woetzel: Cameroon in 2000.<ref>"Behemoth or Bust: An Expedition into Cameroon Investigating Reports of a Sauropod Dinosaur",''Creation Journal 15:2'', August, 2001, pp. 62–68.[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/behemoth-or-bust/]</ref>
* Cryptozoology leader Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons.<ref>[http://www.cryptozoonews.com/mokele09/ Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons]</ref>
* The History Channel Expedition in 2010.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBFwXCFbm8 My Mokele-mbembe Expedition 2010 (The History Channel Expedition)]</ref>
* The History Channel Expedition in 2021.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeBEOnrToSk My
MonsterQuest: DINOSAUR-LIKE Creature Frightens African Jungle Inhabitants 2021(The History Channel Expedition)]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* Mokele-mbembe 1992 footage in BBC's "Congo 2 Spirits of the Forest", 2001. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMQbxNG_xk]

[[Category:Cryptozoology]]

Mokele-mbembe

2022-06-27T23:18:52Z

Snoopy2: qu

''' Mokele-mbembe''' is a possible living [[dinosaur]]. It is classified as a sauropod<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB>{{cite web|url=http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/326/|title= Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur?|author=David Catchpoole|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Creationontheweb.com}}</ref><ref name=Mokelembembe>{{cite web|url=http://www.mokelembembe.com|title=Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Mokelembembe.com}}</ref><ref name=ICR>{{cite web|url=https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=+Mokele-mbembe|title= In Search Of the Congo Dinosaur|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Institute for Creation Research}}</ref> and reportedly lives in the pools and swamps near the rivers of the [[Likouala Region]] in the [[Republic of the Congo]] (ROC).<ref name=Mokelembembe/> There have been numerous reports of sightings for more than 100 years.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/> Noted Congolese [[biologist]] Marcellin Agnagna, who was in an expedition to Lake Tele in 1983, said:

{{cquote|At approximately 2:30pm, … [we] were then able to observe a strange animal, with a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. … The animal was located at about 300 metres from the edge of the lake, and we were able to adv[a]nce about 60 metres in the shallow water, placing us at a distance of about 240 metres from the animal, which had become aware of our presence and was looking around as if to determine the source of the noise. Dinkoumbou [a local villager] continued to shout with fear. The f[r]ontal part of the animal was brown, while the back part of the neck appeared black and shone in the sunlight. The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. It then submerged completely, … no further sighting of the animal took place. It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region [an area of swampland about the same size as Florida]. Its total length from head to back visible above the waterline was estimated at 5 metres.<ref name=CREATIONTHEWEB/>}}

==Anatomy==
According to the available data, Mokele-mbembe has a long [[neck]] and [[tail]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/> Reported length of the animal is approximately 5 to 10 meters, the length of the neck is approximately 1.6 to 3.3 meters<ref name=Trueauthority>{{cite web|url=http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htm|title=Mokele-mbembe|accessdate=2008-08-01|publisher=Trueauthority.com}}</ref> and the estimated length of the tail is between 1.6 and 3.3 meters. It has reddish-brown skin with no body hair. It is generally believed that the animal is unable to produce any [[sound]].<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Behavior==
The animal lives most of the time beneath the surface of the water except when it eats or travels to another part of the wetland. Mokele-mbembe reportedly uses the lakes in the region as a crossing path to go from one river to another river. Some have theorized that the animal does not tolerate the plant-eating [[mammal]] [[hippopotamus]] (''Hippopotamus amphibius'') and kill them on sight, but it does not use them as food. It have been observed that hippopotamuses cannot be found in the region where Mokele-mbembe lives. There are further reports that the animals sometimes capsize boats and kill passengers by biting and hitting them with tail; however it does not eat humans.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Diet==
Mokele-mbembe is apparently a [[herbivore]] and Malombo plant (''Landolphia mannii'' and ''Landolphia owariensis'') is the reported diet of the animal.<ref name=Mokelembembe/>

==Expeditions==
* RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tY5SYt90Zs RARE! Roy P Mackal and Marcellin Agnagna BBC radio Interview, 1984]</ref>
* Roy P. Mackal: Congo in 1980 and 1981.<ref>Roy P. Mackal, A living dinosaur? : in search of Mokele-mbembe. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1987.</ref>
* Three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Video from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012!<ref>Great fIlm footage of three Congo/Cameroon expeditions. Lots of footage from 1992/2001/2002/2003/2012![https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjSdKaDv7P4]</ref>
* Monster Quest expedition: original broadcast in 2009.<ref>[http://monsterquestreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/monsterquest-search-for-last-living.html Monster Quest expedition]</ref>
* Bill Gibbons and David Woetzel: Cameroon in 2000.<ref>"Behemoth or Bust: An Expedition into Cameroon Investigating Reports of a Sauropod Dinosaur",''Creation Journal 15:2'', August, 2001, pp. 62–68.[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/behemoth-or-bust/]</ref>
* Cryptozoology leader Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons.<ref>[http://www.cryptozoonews.com/mokele09/ Loren Coleman interviews Mokele-mbembe researcher William Gibbons]</ref>
* The History Channel Expedition in 2010.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBFwXCFbm8 My Mokele-mbembe Expedition 2010 (The History Channel Expedition)]</ref>
* The History Channel Expedition in 2010.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeBEOnrToSk My
MonsterQuest: DINOSAUR-LIKE Creature Frightens African Jungle Inhabitants 2021(The History Channel Expedition)]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* Mokele-mbembe 1992 footage in BBC's "Congo 2 Spirits of the Forest", 2001. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMQbxNG_xk]

[[Category:Cryptozoology]]

Ropen

2022-06-27T22:27:06Z

Snoopy2: ed

The '''Ropen''' is an alleged "modern [[pterosaur]] with ''Rhamphorhynchoid'' characteristics."<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Ropens-Finding-God-discovering/dp/1502865521 ''Searching for Ropens and Finding God'']. Fourth edition. 2014.</ref> Not officially acknowledged in Western biology, the name of this cryptid comes from the Kovai language on Umboi Island in [[Papua New Guinea]].

Dave Woetzel described an expedition to learn about this cryptid on Umboi Island (north of New Guinea) in 2004.<ref>The Fiery Flying Serpent Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4, March, 2006, pp. 241-251 [http://www.genesispark.com/essays/fiery-serpent/]</ref>

The History Channel sponsored a subsequent search on this island as part of their Monster Quest series.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzb6ZWPq6AI],
MonsterQuest: PREHISTORIC FLYING MONSTER (S3, E15)Aired on: Jun 03, 2009.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Ropen&oldid=325500 Ropen]. ''[[CreationWiki]]''. March 12, 2015.
*Switek, Brian (August 16, 2010). [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/ Don’t Get Strung Along by the “Ropen” Myth]. ''Smithsonian Magazine''.
* The Ropen Flying Pterosaur-like Cryptid. Noah's Dove, posted on Oct 7, 2015.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFSqI2kLIc]

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Cryptozoology]]

Ropen

2022-06-27T22:25:32Z

Snoopy2: csm

The '''Ropen''' is an alleged "modern [[pterosaur]] with ''Rhamphorhynchoid'' characteristics."<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Ropens-Finding-God-discovering/dp/1502865521 ''Searching for Ropens and Finding God'']. Fourth edition. 2014.</ref> Not officially acknowledged in Western biology, the name of this cryptid comes from the Kovai language on Umboi Island in [[Papua New Guinea]].

Dave Woetzel described an expedition to learn about this cryptid on Umboi Island (north of New Guinea) in 2004.<ref>The Fiery Flying Serpent Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4, March, 2006, pp. 241-251 [http://www.genesispark.com/essays/fiery-serpent/]</ref>

The History Channel sponsored a subsequent search on this island as part of their Monster Quest series.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzb6ZWPq6AI], Aired on: Jun 03, 2009.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Ropen&oldid=325500 Ropen]. ''[[CreationWiki]]''. March 12, 2015.
*Switek, Brian (August 16, 2010). [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/ Don’t Get Strung Along by the “Ropen” Myth]. ''Smithsonian Magazine''.
* The Ropen Flying Pterosaur-like Cryptid. Noah's Dove, posted on Oct 7, 2015.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFSqI2kLIc]

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Cryptozoology]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T22:18:57Z

Snoopy2: csm

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid in 2017, "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference", refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> "The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference"
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T22:14:39Z

Snoopy2: csm

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> [The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T22:13:38Z

Snoopy2: csm

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid refuting the shark theory.<ref>youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> [The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T22:12:04Z

Snoopy2: csm

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0</ref> [The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T22:02:43Z

Snoopy2: Dr. Cooper's talk

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid refuting the shark theory.<ref>https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0 [The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference]</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plesiosaur

2022-06-27T21:58:46Z

Snoopy2: Dr. Cooper's talk

{{Taxonomy
|name=Plesiosaur
|image=plesiosaur_owen.png
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=Plesiosauroidea
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=[[Cimoliasauridae]] [[Cryptoclididae]] [[Elasmosauridae]] [[Plesiosauridae]] [[Polycotylidae]]
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Plesiosaurs''' are large [[reptile]]s characterized by long necks with small heads; stocky, finless tails; and a broad, turtle-like body with four flippered appendages. Based on their morphological design and fossilized feces,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4341204.stm "Plesiosaur bottom-feeding shown"], BBC</ref> paleontologists infer that they were sea-dwelling carnivores that dined on fish and shellfish.

Their [[fossil]] skeletons were first discovered in early 19th century in England by [[Mary Anning]] and were among the first large vertebrate fossils found. Since then, many more have been found and there are a number of complete specimens.

The name ''plesiosaur'' (or ''plesiosaurus'') comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] for "near to lizard", and was named by [[William Conybeare]] to signify that it was more lizard-like than the fish-like [[ichthyosaurus]], which was first found only a few years previously nearby.

According to [[evolution]]ary scientists, who use relative dating methods that rely on the [[strata]] fossils are found in, plesiosaurs lived in the [[Jurassic]] period before becoming extinct. According to [[creation]] scientists, who use the [[Bible]], plesiosaurs were created on the fifth day of the [[creation week]]<ref name="tj12.3">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1854/ "Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence"], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):339–346, Dec. 1998</ref> and lived concurrently with Man. It is also widely held among creation researchers that the [[leviathan]] mentioned in the Bible<ref>''Job'' 3:8, 41:1; ''Psalm'' 74:14, 104:26; ''Isaiah'' 27:1</ref> was a type of plesiosaur, specifically the ''kronosaurus''.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-site4.html "The Great Dinosaur Mystery], Christian Answers</ref>

Like other aquatic animals, according to the Bible plesiosaurs were not taken aboard the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp "How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?"], Answers in Genesis</ref> Because of this, some creation researchers believe that not all of them perished in the Flood and that populations survive to this day,<ref name="tj12.3"/> hidden beneath the icy waters of seas and deep lakes. The most often cited evidences for this theory are the many modern sightings around the globe of creatures that fit the description of a plesiosaur, the most famous of which have been reported at [[Loch Ness]], [[Scotland]] (the so-called "Loch Ness Monster" or "Nessie") and [[Lake Okanagan]] in [[British Columbia]] (known as "Ogopogo").

There was also a reputed plesiosaur carcass<ref name="tj12.3"/> dredged up by the Japanese fishing trawler ''Zuiyo Maru'' near [[New Zealand]] in 1977, but many researchers believe it was the remains of a [[basking shark]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1684/ Letting rotting sharks lie] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2) 83–87, Nov. 1999.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4737 A ‘tail’ of many monsters] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 74–75, Aug. 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4752/ Parkie: a new ‘pseudoplesiosaur’ washed up on the Nova Scotia coast] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(2) 119–118, Aug. 2005.</ref> Close inspection of the original Japanese scientific report reveals unanimous eyewitness testimony that the cryptid had a pair of upper fins. This observation, if not refuted, disproves a shark identification. <ref>[https://creationresearch.org/new-zuiyo-maru-cryptid-observations-strong-indications-marine-tetrapod/"New Zuiyo Maru Cryptid Observations"], Creation Research Society Quarterly, John Goertzen, June 2001, CRSQ Vol 38 No 1 pp 19-29</ref>

Not one of the Japanese ichthyologists examining the evidence thought the cryptid was a shark. Captain Tanaka and Prof. Yasuda discuss the creature in this clip <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udD8hGuGUeQ</ref>

Dr. Bill Cooper reexamined the evidence of the Zuiyo Maru cryptid refuting the shark theory.<ref>[https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA-PospP6B0], The Japanese Plesiosaur Reconsidered by Dr. Bill Cooper at the Seventh European Creationist Conference</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Suppression of alternatives to evolution

2020-08-20T17:04:13Z

Snoopy2: New PhD Thesis Documents Discrimination against Creationists

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]].

== History ==

Until [[Charles Darwin]] popularised<ref>Darwin didn't invent the idea. Similar ideas had been around for a long time, and even Charles Darwin's uncle Erasmus was an evolutionist.</ref> the idea of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists.
Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design.
Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life.
(These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design.
This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalizing or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

{{QuoteBox|It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].<ref>Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, ''Christian Times'', p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.</ref>}}

The movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' with [[Ben Stein]] released in April 2008 exposes the suppression of alternatives to evolution.
Scientist and professor Jerry Bergman documents additional instances of suppression in "Slaughter of the Dissidents."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk&index=64&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7 Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - Origins]</ref>

== Ideology ==
The motivation for suppressing views opposed to evolution includes anti-theistic ideologies.

Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ''[[a priori]]'' adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.<ref>Lewontin, Richard, Billions and billions of demons, ''The New York Review'', p. 31, 9 January 1997, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/ Amazing admission], ''Creation'' 20(3):24, June 1998.</ref>}}

Atheist professor Jerry Fodor, on attempts to question the theory:{{QuoteBox|I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120101183024/http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/ What Darwin Got Wrong], ''Salon'' website</ref>}}

== Vilification ==
Anti-creationists have often openly vilified creation and creationists:
* [[Isaac Asimov]] said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."<ref>Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? ''The Humanist'' 44(4):6–10, 1984, quoted by Bergman, 2005</ref>
* [[Richard Dawkins]] said that anyone rejecting evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that)"<ref>Barnes, 2007</ref>
* Tom Mason, Director of the [[Armagh]] planetarium, links the creationary view to [[Islam]]ic fundamentalism, the [[Inquisition]], and [[Jihad]], and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".<ref>Mason, Tom, Science and Fundamentalism, ''Earth Science Ireland'', issue 3, spring 2008 (available online at [http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/], then click on "Newletter" link).</ref>

Creationary [[scientist]]s frequently have their qualifications questioned, blatantly or subtly.
* On the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education, the article about Creation Ministries International lists CMI's senior staff, but for each scientist listed, puts quote marks around the word "scientist", implying that they are not really scientists.<ref>[http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationMinistriesInternational Creation Ministries International] on the BSCE web-site.</ref> Yet each of the scientists listed holds valid qualifications from reputable secular universities.

== Cases of suppression ==

=== Recognition affected ===

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

==== David Bolhuis ====

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, [[Michigan]] was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year.
However, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution.
Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.<ref>Bergman, 1984, pp.25 & 26.</ref>

==== Raymond Damadian ====

Secular journalist Rick Weiss, writing in Smithsonian Magazine (Dec. 2003) suggests Raymond Damadian was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] for inventing MRI because of his belief in young earth creation.<ref>'''Creation Evolution Headlines''', February 9, 2004, David F. Coppedge. Was the Nobel Denied to a Creationist?[https://crev.info/2004/02/was_the_nobel_denied_to_a_creationist/]</ref> In addition to denying Damadian the prize, they censored any mention of him in their accompanying notes on the MRI invention.

=== Employment affected ===

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed.
This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

==== Lloyd Dale ====

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.<ref>Bergman, 1986, p.61.</ref>

==== Forrest Mims ====

[[Forrest Mims]] III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 [[newspaper]]s and [[magazine]]s.

Science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' invited him to submit some articles for their ''Amateur Scientist'' column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.

The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.<ref>Anon., 1991.</ref><ref>Anon., 1997?</ref>

==== Richard Sternberg ====
{{main|Smithsonian-Sternberg affair}}

==== Guillermo Gonzalez ====
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied [[tenure]] and promotion to associate professor by [[Iowa State University]], despite apparently easily meeting their criteria.
The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals".
Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.

But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.<ref>Grigg, 2007</ref><ref>Klinghoffer, 2007</ref>

==== Robert Gentry ====

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on [[radiohalos]], and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including ''Science'', ''Nature'', and ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.<ref>Gentry, 186, p.191</ref><ref>Buckna</ref>

==== Roger Paull ====
Roger Paull was a substitute [[teacher]] in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher.
The video disparaged [[Christianity]] and glorified [[naturalism]].
After the third video, on [[theory of evolution|evolution]], he briefly mentioned [[intelligent design]] to the class.
The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed".
He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
<ref>Paull, 2007</ref>

==== Michael Reiss ====
Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students ''about'' creationism,<ref>Simpson and Gray, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b)</ref> and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part-time job as Director of Education at the [[Royal Society]].<ref>Beckford, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b).</ref>

==== Mark Armitage ====
Armitage published evidence of surviving soft tissue from a dinosaur upsetting the Darwinist timetable that they went extinct 65 million years ago. Rushing into his office in a rage, the supervisor summarily terminated him. Interestingly, this occurred after his publication in a secular peer-reviewed journal, though he had discussed the results openly for a long time previously.<ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraobital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica 115:603-608.</ref> Mark's case is unusual in that the administrators settled to avoid a certain loss.<ref>October 4, 2016. '''Creation Evolution Headlines''', October 4, 2016. David F. Coppedge, ''Mark Armitage Wins Legal Victory''.[https://crev.info/2016/10/mark-armitage-wins-legal-victory/]</ref> The Intelligent Design community also commented on these events.<ref>''Armitage “creationist” settlement: Science vs religion?'', '''Uncommon Descent''', October 6, 2016[https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/armitage-creationist-settlement-science-vs-religion/]</ref>

==== Günter Bechly ====
Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany.<ref>Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly, David Klinghoffer, '''Evolution News''', October 10, 2017,[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/]</ref>

==== Legislative Solutions ====
A number of states passed laws to prevent discrimination against dissenters from Darwin. Unhappily a recent effort in S. Dakota failed.<ref>Uncommon Descent. "Darwin fans: We censor in order to oppose censorship", February 23, 2017[https://uncommondescent.com/science-education/darwin-fans-we-censor-in-order-to-oppose-censorship/].</ref>

==== Pervasive Discrimination in the Academy ====
New PhD Thesis Documents Discrimination against Creationists in Academia: A Look at the History and Claims of Anti-Creationists.<ref>"New Evidence for Discrimination Against Christians in Academia", July 17, 2020 | Jerry Bergman[https://crev.info/2020/07/discrimination-against-christians-in-academia/].</ref>

=== Accreditation affected ===
==== The ICR Graduate School ====
{{main|ICR Graduate School#Controversies{{!}}ICR Graduate School}}

The [[ICR Graduate School]] had for years been offering graduate degrees in [[California]]. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, [[William Honig]], determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to [[Texas]] but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

=== Court challenges to education ===

In 1925 the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] challenged a [[Tennessee]] law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the [[Scopes Trial]].
The ACLU lawyer, [[Clarence Darrow]], argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.<ref>[http://new.jesuscreated.org/index.html Jesus Created Ministries, Home page].</ref>

Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

==== Dover County School Board ====

{{main|Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District}}

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book ''Of Pandas and People'' is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.

But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

==== Philip Bishop ====

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the [[University of Alabama]], to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring [[intelligent design]], on the grounds that they were religious.
Yet views ''opposing'' religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.<ref>Bergman, 2004</ref>

==== Cobb County School District ====

{{main|Selman v. Cobb County School District}}

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in [[Georgia]], U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:
{{QuoteBox|This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.}}
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

=== Peer review publications ===

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass [[peer review]], and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.<ref>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}

==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====

The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>

==== ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' ====

In August 2004<ref>Meyer, 2004. The on-line archives of the magazine list it as June 2004 [http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=2], but this is not considered reliable, as the same source lists both of the following two issues as being December 2004.</ref> the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' published a paper by [[Stephen Meyer]]<ref>Meyer, 2004</ref> which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.

The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the [[Biological Society of Washington]] undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.

There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false.<ref>McVay, 2005</ref>
The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]'s position that intelligent design is not science.<ref>Sternberg; Walker, 2007; Klinghoffer, 1995a</ref><ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>

==== ''Science'' letters to the editor ====

After failing to get a letter published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', [[Russell Humphreys]] wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters.
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Public information ===

==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====

In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], executive director of the American [[National Center for Science Education]], openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument. '''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist<ref>This is according to the official transcript. The audio sounded more like this being a reference to Christian Science than Christian scientists. The [[Christian Science]] cult, unlike Christian scientists, denies the germ theory of disease.</ref> who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}

==== Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre ====

When creationists proposed<ref>The Causeway Creation Committee, [http://www.causewaycreation.com/Objectives.html Objectives]</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/30/creationists-claim-the-giants-causeway/ Creationists claim the Giant’s Causeway], Reuters Blogs, 30th November, 2007.</ref> that a new visitor's centre at the [[Giant's Causeway]] geological formation in [[Northern Ireland]] should include the creationist explanation of its formation<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016 A giant cause], ''Creation'' 27(2):28–34, March 2005.</ref> alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.<ref>Zalasiewicz, Jan, and Bazley, Tony, [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page3473_en.html Giant's Causeway - myth and reality], ''Geoscientist'' 18.4, April 2008.</ref><ref>Walker, Tasman, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5729 Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UK] 3rd May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

==== Suppression of Scientific Evidence ====

David Coppedge chronicles Robert Service's misrepresentations and distortions of peer reviewed dinosaur soft tissue evidence in a recent issue of the peer reviewed journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.<ref>''AAAS Tries to Downplay Dinosaur Soft Tissue''. '''Creation Evolution Headlines''', September 19, 2017 | David F. Coppedge[https://crev.info/2017/09/aaas-tries-downplay-dinosaur-soft-tissue/]</ref>

Susan Mazur, an American journalist (Huffington Post) who has been covering the antics of the Darwinian establishment for most of a decade, was disinvited from a scientific congress (Netherlands).<ref>This evolution meeting must be significant: Suzan Mazur has been disinvited… again! '''Uncommon Descent''', October 23, 2017.[https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/this-evolution-meeting-must-be-significant-suzan-mazur-has-been-disinvited-again/]</ref>

=== Attempts to prevent creationists being heard ===

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

==== Werner Gitt ====

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. [[Werner Gitt]] from giving a talk titled ''Why I as a scientist believe the Bible'' at Leibniz University.
The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk.
As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead.
Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.<ref>Wieland, 2008</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]
*[[Darwinism]]

{{Creation_vs._evolution}}

== Bibliography ==
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248/ Scientific American refuses to hire creationist], ''Creation'' 13(2):16–17, March 1991.
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3470/ Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination], 1997?  (Creation Ministries International).
* Barnes, Peter, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5405/ The early chapters of Genesis and evolution], 13 November 2007 (Creation Ministries International)
* Beckford, Martin, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools] ''Telegraph'', 16 September 2008.
* Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion, Onesimus, Richfield Minnesota, 1984, ISBN 0-932903-01-0.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/ Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview], ''Journal of Creation'' 9(2):267–275, August 1995.
* Bergman, Jerry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=97 A Story of Two Professors] ''Impact'' 372, 1 June 2004.
* Buckna, David, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486/ Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville Tennessee, 1986, ISBN 0-9616753-1-4.
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126/ Darwinian thought police strike again], 12 June 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 Expelled: New movie exposes persecution of anti-Darwinists], 15 February 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6047/ Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution], 23 September 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic], ''Opinion Journal'', 28 January 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp Unintelligent Design] National Review Online, 16 August 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp Tenure Trouble], The Weekly Standard, 6 August 2007.
* McVay, James, [http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"], 5 August 2005.
* Paull, Roger, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5788 Censoring intelligent design], 27 May 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sheppard, Pam, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/ The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy], 22 August 2005 (Creation Ministries International).
* Simpson, Aislinn, and Gray, Richard, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert] ''Telegraph'', 12 September 2008.
* Sternberg, Richard, [http://www.rsternberg.net/ Richard Sternberg's home page]
* Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5053/ Chemists in stew about intelligent design], 24 April 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6182 ‘Go to hell, creationists!’], 30 December 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Williams, Robyn, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2003/798387.htm The Steve Project] The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast 8 March 2003.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Suppression of alternatives to evolution

2020-08-20T17:02:26Z

Snoopy2: /* Legislative Solutions */

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]].

== History ==

Until [[Charles Darwin]] popularised<ref>Darwin didn't invent the idea. Similar ideas had been around for a long time, and even Charles Darwin's uncle Erasmus was an evolutionist.</ref> the idea of [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the middle of the 19th century, most people including the vast majority of scientists were creationists.
Over the next 50 to 100 years, however, evolution came to be the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences in particular, and science in general.

In the early 1960s, creationism began a resurgence, followed a few decades later by intelligent design.
Once these ideas had started to gain a degree of popularity, however, many people, committed to evolutionary thought, began to oppose these competing views of the history of life.
(These people generally consider Intelligent design to be creationism in disguise, although there are significant differences between the two ideas.)

However, this opposition has not been merely academic debate of the merits of the competing ideas, but a concerted effort to suppress creationism and intelligent design.
This opposition has included keeping the ideas out of the education system and marginalizing or ridiculing the ideas in the mass media.

{{QuoteBox|It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].<ref>Haney, K., Academic freedom’s double standard, ''Christian Times'', p. 4, 28 June 1985, quoted by Bergman, 1995.</ref>}}

The movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' with [[Ben Stein]] released in April 2008 exposes the suppression of alternatives to evolution.
Scientist and professor Jerry Bergman documents additional instances of suppression in "Slaughter of the Dissidents."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk&index=64&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7 Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - Origins]</ref>

== Ideology ==
The motivation for suppressing views opposed to evolution includes anti-theistic ideologies.

Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our ''[[a priori]]'' adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.<ref>Lewontin, Richard, Billions and billions of demons, ''The New York Review'', p. 31, 9 January 1997, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/ Amazing admission], ''Creation'' 20(3):24, June 1998.</ref>}}

Atheist professor Jerry Fodor, on attempts to question the theory:{{QuoteBox|I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120101183024/http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/ What Darwin Got Wrong], ''Salon'' website</ref>}}

== Vilification ==
Anti-creationists have often openly vilified creation and creationists:
* [[Isaac Asimov]] said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."<ref>Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? ''The Humanist'' 44(4):6–10, 1984, quoted by Bergman, 2005</ref>
* [[Richard Dawkins]] said that anyone rejecting evolution is "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that)"<ref>Barnes, 2007</ref>
* Tom Mason, Director of the [[Armagh]] planetarium, links the creationary view to [[Islam]]ic fundamentalism, the [[Inquisition]], and [[Jihad]], and refers to creationism as "ignorance", "irrationality", and "narrow-minded".<ref>Mason, Tom, Science and Fundamentalism, ''Earth Science Ireland'', issue 3, spring 2008 (available online at [http://www.habitas.org.uk/es2k/], then click on "Newletter" link).</ref>

Creationary [[scientist]]s frequently have their qualifications questioned, blatantly or subtly.
* On the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education, the article about Creation Ministries International lists CMI's senior staff, but for each scientist listed, puts quote marks around the word "scientist", implying that they are not really scientists.<ref>[http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationMinistriesInternational Creation Ministries International] on the BSCE web-site.</ref> Yet each of the scientists listed holds valid qualifications from reputable secular universities.

== Cases of suppression ==

=== Recognition affected ===

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

==== David Bolhuis ====

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, [[Michigan]] was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year.
However, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution.
Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.<ref>Bergman, 1984, pp.25 & 26.</ref>

==== Raymond Damadian ====

Secular journalist Rick Weiss, writing in Smithsonian Magazine (Dec. 2003) suggests Raymond Damadian was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] for inventing MRI because of his belief in young earth creation.<ref>'''Creation Evolution Headlines''', February 9, 2004, David F. Coppedge. Was the Nobel Denied to a Creationist?[https://crev.info/2004/02/was_the_nobel_denied_to_a_creationist/]</ref> In addition to denying Damadian the prize, they censored any mention of him in their accompanying notes on the MRI invention.

=== Employment affected ===

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed.
This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

==== Lloyd Dale ====

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.<ref>Bergman, 1986, p.61.</ref>

==== Forrest Mims ====

[[Forrest Mims]] III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 [[newspaper]]s and [[magazine]]s.

Science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' invited him to submit some articles for their ''Amateur Scientist'' column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.

The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.<ref>Anon., 1991.</ref><ref>Anon., 1997?</ref>

==== Richard Sternberg ====
{{main|Smithsonian-Sternberg affair}}

==== Guillermo Gonzalez ====
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied [[tenure]] and promotion to associate professor by [[Iowa State University]], despite apparently easily meeting their criteria.
The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals".
Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.

But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.<ref>Grigg, 2007</ref><ref>Klinghoffer, 2007</ref>

==== Robert Gentry ====

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on [[radiohalos]], and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including ''Science'', ''Nature'', and ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.<ref>Gentry, 186, p.191</ref><ref>Buckna</ref>

==== Roger Paull ====
Roger Paull was a substitute [[teacher]] in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher.
The video disparaged [[Christianity]] and glorified [[naturalism]].
After the third video, on [[theory of evolution|evolution]], he briefly mentioned [[intelligent design]] to the class.
The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed".
He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
<ref>Paull, 2007</ref>

==== Michael Reiss ====
Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students ''about'' creationism,<ref>Simpson and Gray, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b)</ref> and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part-time job as Director of Education at the [[Royal Society]].<ref>Beckford, 2008; Halloway, 2008(b).</ref>

==== Mark Armitage ====
Armitage published evidence of surviving soft tissue from a dinosaur upsetting the Darwinist timetable that they went extinct 65 million years ago. Rushing into his office in a rage, the supervisor summarily terminated him. Interestingly, this occurred after his publication in a secular peer-reviewed journal, though he had discussed the results openly for a long time previously.<ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraobital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica 115:603-608.</ref> Mark's case is unusual in that the administrators settled to avoid a certain loss.<ref>October 4, 2016. '''Creation Evolution Headlines''', October 4, 2016. David F. Coppedge, ''Mark Armitage Wins Legal Victory''.[https://crev.info/2016/10/mark-armitage-wins-legal-victory/]</ref> The Intelligent Design community also commented on these events.<ref>''Armitage “creationist” settlement: Science vs religion?'', '''Uncommon Descent''', October 6, 2016[https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/armitage-creationist-settlement-science-vs-religion/]</ref>

==== Günter Bechly ====
Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany.<ref>Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly, David Klinghoffer, '''Evolution News''', October 10, 2017,[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/]</ref>

==== Legislative Solutions ====
A number of states passed laws to prevent discrimination against dissenters from Darwin. Unhappily a recent effort in S. Dakota failed.<ref>Uncommon Descent. "Darwin fans: We censor in order to oppose censorship", February 23, 2017[https://uncommondescent.com/science-education/darwin-fans-we-censor-in-order-to-oppose-censorship/].</ref>

==== Pervasive Discrimination in the Academy ====
<ref>"New Evidence for Discrimination Against Christians in Academia", July 17, 2020 | Jerry Bergman[https://crev.info/2020/07/discrimination-against-christians-in-academia/].</ref>

=== Accreditation affected ===
==== The ICR Graduate School ====
{{main|ICR Graduate School#Controversies{{!}}ICR Graduate School}}

The [[ICR Graduate School]] had for years been offering graduate degrees in [[California]]. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, [[William Honig]], determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to [[Texas]] but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

=== Court challenges to education ===

In 1925 the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] challenged a [[Tennessee]] law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the [[Scopes Trial]].
The ACLU lawyer, [[Clarence Darrow]], argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.<ref>[http://new.jesuscreated.org/index.html Jesus Created Ministries, Home page].</ref>

Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

==== Dover County School Board ====

{{main|Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District}}

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book ''Of Pandas and People'' is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.

But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

==== Philip Bishop ====

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the [[University of Alabama]], to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring [[intelligent design]], on the grounds that they were religious.
Yet views ''opposing'' religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.<ref>Bergman, 2004</ref>

==== Cobb County School District ====

{{main|Selman v. Cobb County School District}}

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in [[Georgia]], U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:
{{QuoteBox|This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.}}
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

=== Peer review publications ===

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass [[peer review]], and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.<ref>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}

==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====

The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>

==== ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' ====

In August 2004<ref>Meyer, 2004. The on-line archives of the magazine list it as June 2004 [http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=2], but this is not considered reliable, as the same source lists both of the following two issues as being December 2004.</ref> the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' published a paper by [[Stephen Meyer]]<ref>Meyer, 2004</ref> which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.

The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the [[Biological Society of Washington]] undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.

There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false.<ref>McVay, 2005</ref>
The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]'s position that intelligent design is not science.<ref>Sternberg; Walker, 2007; Klinghoffer, 1995a</ref><ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>

==== ''Science'' letters to the editor ====

After failing to get a letter published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', [[Russell Humphreys]] wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters.
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Public information ===

==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====

In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], executive director of the American [[National Center for Science Education]], openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument. '''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist<ref>This is according to the official transcript. The audio sounded more like this being a reference to Christian Science than Christian scientists. The [[Christian Science]] cult, unlike Christian scientists, denies the germ theory of disease.</ref> who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}

==== Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre ====

When creationists proposed<ref>The Causeway Creation Committee, [http://www.causewaycreation.com/Objectives.html Objectives]</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/30/creationists-claim-the-giants-causeway/ Creationists claim the Giant’s Causeway], Reuters Blogs, 30th November, 2007.</ref> that a new visitor's centre at the [[Giant's Causeway]] geological formation in [[Northern Ireland]] should include the creationist explanation of its formation<ref>Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016 A giant cause], ''Creation'' 27(2):28–34, March 2005.</ref> alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.<ref>Zalasiewicz, Jan, and Bazley, Tony, [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page3473_en.html Giant's Causeway - myth and reality], ''Geoscientist'' 18.4, April 2008.</ref><ref>Walker, Tasman, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5729 Call to censor public information at the Giant’s Causeway, UK] 3rd May, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

==== Suppression of Scientific Evidence ====

David Coppedge chronicles Robert Service's misrepresentations and distortions of peer reviewed dinosaur soft tissue evidence in a recent issue of the peer reviewed journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.<ref>''AAAS Tries to Downplay Dinosaur Soft Tissue''. '''Creation Evolution Headlines''', September 19, 2017 | David F. Coppedge[https://crev.info/2017/09/aaas-tries-downplay-dinosaur-soft-tissue/]</ref>

Susan Mazur, an American journalist (Huffington Post) who has been covering the antics of the Darwinian establishment for most of a decade, was disinvited from a scientific congress (Netherlands).<ref>This evolution meeting must be significant: Suzan Mazur has been disinvited… again! '''Uncommon Descent''', October 23, 2017.[https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/this-evolution-meeting-must-be-significant-suzan-mazur-has-been-disinvited-again/]</ref>

=== Attempts to prevent creationists being heard ===

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

==== Werner Gitt ====

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. [[Werner Gitt]] from giving a talk titled ''Why I as a scientist believe the Bible'' at Leibniz University.
The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk.
As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead.
Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.<ref>Wieland, 2008</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]
*[[Darwinism]]

{{Creation_vs._evolution}}

== Bibliography ==
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248/ Scientific American refuses to hire creationist], ''Creation'' 13(2):16–17, March 1991.
* Anon., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3470/ Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination], 1997?  (Creation Ministries International).
* Barnes, Peter, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5405/ The early chapters of Genesis and evolution], 13 November 2007 (Creation Ministries International)
* Beckford, Martin, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools] ''Telegraph'', 16 September 2008.
* Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion, Onesimus, Richfield Minnesota, 1984, ISBN 0-932903-01-0.
* Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/ Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview], ''Journal of Creation'' 9(2):267–275, August 1995.
* Bergman, Jerry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=97 A Story of Two Professors] ''Impact'' 372, 1 June 2004.
* Buckna, David, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486/ Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Gentry, Robert V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville Tennessee, 1986, ISBN 0-9616753-1-4.
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126/ Darwinian thought police strike again], 12 June 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5626 Expelled: New movie exposes persecution of anti-Darwinists], 15 February 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Halloway, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6047/ Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution], 23 September 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Klinghoffer, David, [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic], ''Opinion Journal'', 28 January 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp Unintelligent Design] National Review Online, 16 August 2005.
* Klinghoffer, David, [https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp Tenure Trouble], The Weekly Standard, 6 August 2007.
* McVay, James, [http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"], 5 August 2005.
* Paull, Roger, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5788 Censoring intelligent design], 27 May 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sheppard, Pam, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593/ The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy], 22 August 2005 (Creation Ministries International).
* Simpson, Aislinn, and Gray, Richard, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2798162/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-classes-says-expert.html Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert] ''Telegraph'', 12 September 2008.
* Sternberg, Richard, [http://www.rsternberg.net/ Richard Sternberg's home page]
* Walker, Tas., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5053/ Chemists in stew about intelligent design], 24 April 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6182 ‘Go to hell, creationists!’], 30 December 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Williams, Robyn, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2003/798387.htm The Steve Project] The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast 8 March 2003.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:Snoopy2

2020-02-12T00:24:16Z

Snoopy2: e

{{Welcome}}
If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on [[Ropen‎]], you might want to try using <code><nowiki><ref>Reference text here</ref></nowiki></code> to add the citation. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Punctuation ==

Favorite movie: "The Wrong Friend"
Favorite Book: "Gray is the color of hope"

== Punctuation ==

Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
J-I tp.p.g.[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/garelli_fs_tadmor_1991.pdf] n.n. saa [https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37115745/T.P._III_-_738_Borders.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510949997&Signature=wOoLlPDcmY308amEP9h1HdZU0NE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBorders_and_Districts_in_Descriptions_of.pdf] dk.e.eth[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/a-new-low-for-evolutionary-ethics/] z.m[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTikeTomelY]
phlogist[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/][https://www.thecollegefix.com/i-was-forced-out-of-my-phd-program-because-of-my-open-faith-in-jesus-christ-heres-my-story/]

== ref ==
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin
by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.

== suggestion ==

Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments? -- unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]

:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter ==
watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79foBIrar4]
I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).

The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia ==
see
Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky.
All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go.
Any practical suggestions are welcome.

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again==
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys:
instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it?
No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
:What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow ''anyone'' to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: [[Conservapedia:Edit]]. You have not been blocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
::Night mode is a nuisance, so if that is what you are talking about, I do apologize. If you stay around and make productive edits, you may be enabled to bypass it and edit during the EDT night. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).

Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence
By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 [https://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-researcher-establishes-link-between-threats-and-abuse-cases-domestic-partner-violence]

This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) [http://www.cdar.uky.edu/CoerciveControl/docs/Human%20Trafficking%20in%20Kentucky.pdf]

Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it.
Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.

Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't

{{unsigned|Snoopy2}}
[[Christianity Today]] If you doubt Darwinism, the evangelical left will RELENTLESSly concur with Richard Dawkins and insist you're insane or wicked (though he'd rather not think about that).
Don't go that far. Just endorse Intelligent Design.

:Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

[[Christianity Today]] If you doubt Darwinism, the evangelical left will RELENTLESSly concur with Richard Dawkins and insist you're insane or wicked (though he'd rather not think about that).
Don't go that far. Just endorse Intelligent Design.

User talk:Snoopy2

2020-02-12T00:22:49Z

Snoopy2: Christianity Today

{{Welcome}}
If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on [[Ropen‎]], you might want to try using <code><nowiki><ref>Reference text here</ref></nowiki></code> to add the citation. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Punctuation ==

Favorite movie: "The Wrong Friend"
Favorite Book: "Gray is the color of hope"

== Punctuation ==

Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
J-I tp.p.g.[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/garelli_fs_tadmor_1991.pdf] n.n. saa [https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37115745/T.P._III_-_738_Borders.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510949997&Signature=wOoLlPDcmY308amEP9h1HdZU0NE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBorders_and_Districts_in_Descriptions_of.pdf] dk.e.eth[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/a-new-low-for-evolutionary-ethics/] z.m[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTikeTomelY]
phlogist[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/][https://www.thecollegefix.com/i-was-forced-out-of-my-phd-program-because-of-my-open-faith-in-jesus-christ-heres-my-story/]

== ref ==
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin
by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.

== suggestion ==

Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments? -- unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]

:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter ==
watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79foBIrar4]
I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).

The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia ==
see
Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky.
All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go.
Any practical suggestions are welcome.

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again==
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys:
instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it?
No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
:What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow ''anyone'' to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: [[Conservapedia:Edit]]. You have not been blocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
::Night mode is a nuisance, so if that is what you are talking about, I do apologize. If you stay around and make productive edits, you may be enabled to bypass it and edit during the EDT night. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).

Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence
By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 [https://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-researcher-establishes-link-between-threats-and-abuse-cases-domestic-partner-violence]

This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) [http://www.cdar.uky.edu/CoerciveControl/docs/Human%20Trafficking%20in%20Kentucky.pdf]

Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it.
Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.

Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't

{{unsigned|Snoopy2}}
[[Christianity Today]] If you doubt Darwinism, the evangelical left will RELENTLESSly concur with Richard Dawkins and insist you're insane or wicked (though he'd rather not think about that).
Don't go that far. Just endorse Intelligent Design.

:Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

Is Genesis History?

2019-11-09T19:38:45Z

Snoopy2: interview Director Thomas Purifoy

{{Infobox Film
| name= Is Genesis History?
| image=Is Genesis History.jpg
| caption=Movie poster, prior to the subsquent re-showings
| director=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| producer=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| writer=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| narrator=Del Tackett
| starring=Del Tackett +13 scientists and scholars
| music=
| cinematography=
| editing=
| distributor=Compass Cinema Fathom Events
| released=February 23, 2017 (U.S.) March 14, 2017 (Canada)
| runtime=101 minutes Q&A/Credits: 17 min<ref>[http://isgenesishistory.com/overview Overview: Synopsis]. ''Isgenesishistory.com''. Retrieved March 11, 2017.</ref>
| country=United States Canada
| language=English
| budget=
| gross=$2,570,355<ref name="TheNumbers">{{cite web | title=Is Genesis History? (2017) | url=http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Is-Genesis-History#tab=summary | publisher=The Numbers | accessdate=September 30, 2017}}</ref><ref name="FinalBoxOffice"/>
| preceded_by=
| followed_by=
| website=https://isgenesishistory.com/
| amg_id=
| imdb_id=6360332
}}
'''''Is Genesis History?''''' is a 2017 [[Christian]] [[Young-Earth creationism|young Earth creationist]] documentary film that shows that [[Genesis]] 1–11 records real history. Produced by Compass Cinema, the film stars [[Del Tackett]], the former president of the Focus on the Family Institute and a key person in the ''Truth Project'', "a DVD curriculum distributed by [[Focus on the Family]]" that teaches a strong biblical worldview.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/speak-up/ A Passion for Truth - Answers Magazine]. ''[[Answers in Genesis]]''. July 1, 2016. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref>

Hosted by Fathom Events,<ref name="Fathom">[https://www.fathomevents.com/events/is-genesis-history Is Genesis History? - Fathom Events], Fathom Events</ref> the film screened in over 700 theaters in the [[United States]]. While originally planned for a one-time showing only on February 23, 2017, encore presentations were added for March 2 and March 7, 2017, after a strong showing. The movie was shown again on February 22, 2018, in even more theaters than before.

==Background==
''Is Genesis History?'' was first conceived when the daughter of Thomas Purifoy Jr., the film's director, started asking him questions on the creation/evolution topic after the [[Ken Ham]]/[[Bill Nye]] debate in February 2014.<ref>Storm, Christie (February 18, 2017). [http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2017/feb/18/daughter-s-queries-prompted-genesis-fil-1/ Daughter's queries prompted Genesis film]. ''Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> Purifoy read dozens of books on the creation/evolution topic, many of which he recommended, for the film.<ref>Purifoy Jr, Thomas (March 15, 2017). [http://isgenesishistory.com/notes/reading-list-making-film/ My Reading List for Making the Film]. ''isgenesishistory.com''. Retrieved March 15, 2017.</ref>

==Synopsis==
''Is Genesis History?'' is hosted by Del Tackett.<ref>Law, Jeannie (February 16, 2017). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/evidence-of-young-earth-creationism-will-debunk-current-scientific-paradigm-filmmaker-says-175074/ Evidence of Young Earth Creationism Will Debunk Current Scientific Paradigm, Filmmaker Says]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/february/are-the-biblical-events-of-genesis-real-life-history-this-guy-spent-a-year-asking-scientists-just-that Are Biblical Events of Genesis Real-Life History? This Guy Spent a Year Asking Scientists Just That]. ''CBN News''. February 2, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2018.</ref> The film's main question, as the title shows, is whether the Book of [[Genesis]] in the [[Bible]] records real historical events.<ref>Graham, Efrem (February 24, 2017). [https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2017/february/bible-documentary-answers-one-question-is-genesis-history Bible Documentary Answers One Question: 'Is Genesis History?']. ''CBN News''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Boatwright, Phil (February 3, 2017). [http://www.bpnews.net/48282/movies-is-genesis-scientific-history MOVIES: Is Genesis scientific history?] ''Baptist Press''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref name="Tomlin">Tomlin, Gregory (November 29, 2016). [http://christianexaminer.com/article/is-genesis-history-film-aims-to-answer-questions-of-creation-evolution-global-flood/51252.htm IS GENESIS HISTORY? Film aims to answer questions of creation, evolution, global flood]. ''ChristianExaminer''. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref><ref>[http://religionnews.com/2016/11/29/where-does-everything-come-from-documentary-is-genesis-history-explores-the-biggest-questions/ Where does everything come from? Documentary ‘Is Genesis History?’ explores the biggest questions]. ''Religion News Service''. November 29, 2016. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref> Tackett tackles many questions<ref>[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/big-picture/ The Big Picture]. ''IsGenesisHistory.com''. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref> concerning Genesis 1–11 and its historical accuracy. In addition, he interviews 16 experts in various scientific or theological fields who all hold PhDs and are biblical creationists. Through these interviews, Tackett shows that an overwhelming amount of evidence ''for'' a young Earth exists, as well as ''against'' the pseudoscientific theory of evolution.

==Cast==
All the scientists and scholars Tackett interviews have Ph.Ds, many of them from secular universities. Additionally, they all have done exemplary work in their respective fields. Here is the list of interviewed people:<ref name="Experts">[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/experts/ Experts]. ''IsGenesisHistory.com''. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/is-genesis-history-documentary-screens-tonight-64982/ ‘Is Genesis History’ Documentary screens tonight]. ''The Global Dispatch''. February 23, 2017. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>
*Kevin Anderson, microbiologist
*[[Steve Austin]], geologist
*Steven Boyd, Hebraist
*Robert Carter, marine biologist
*Art Chadwick, taphonomist
*Danny Faulkner, astronomer
*George Grant, pastor
*Paul Nelson, philosopher of science
*Douglas Petrovich, archaeologist
*[[Marcus Ross]], paleontologist
*[[Andrew Snelling]], geologist
*Kurt Wise, paleontologist
*Todd Wood, biologist

Scientists Larry Vardiman and Stuart Burgess and theologian Doug Kelly also were interviewed and are among the film's bonus features.<ref name="Experts"/>

==Release and success==
''Is Genesis History?'' was released for one night in theaters on February 23, 2017. It performed very well—143,000 people<ref name="AdventistReview"/><ref name="ContinuedSuccess"/> watched it in 704<ref name="BoxOfficeMojo">[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=isgenesishistory.htm Is Genesis History?]. ''Box Office Mojo''. Retrieved March 14, 2017.</ref> theaters and many theaters were sold-out. Its box office on its opening night was $1,796,182<ref name="BoxOfficeMojo"/>—the highest box office of any film in the United States that night,<ref name="LawCP">Law, Jeannie (March 4, 2017). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-genesis-history-film-on-young-earth-creationism-returns-to-theaters-for-encore-screening-176559/ 'Is Genesis History?' Film on Young Earth Creationism Returns to Theaters for Encore Screening]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref name="AdventistReview">Standish, Timothy G. (March 7, 2017). [http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story4881-strong-one-day-attendance-to-biblical-creation-film-prompts-additional-showings Strong One-Day Attendance to Biblical Creation Film Prompts Additional Showings]. ''Adventist Review''. Retrieved March 13, 2017.</ref><ref name="Ham2/28/17">Ham, Ken (February 28, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/02/28/is-genesis-history-encore-showings-in-theaters/ Is Genesis History? Encore Showings in Theaters]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Guerrasio, Jason (April 5, 2017). [https://www.businessinsider.com/faith-based-movies-in-trump-era-2017-4 How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump]. ''Business Insider''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref><ref name="ContinuedSuccess"/> more than five times the average of all other movies that night.<ref name="AMFMMag">[http://www.amfm-magazine.com/is-genesis-history-one-night-only-fathom-event-hits-1-in-box-office-returns-to-theaters-march-2nd-and-7th/ IS GENESIS HISTORY? FATHOM EVENT HITS #1 IN BOX OFFICE, RETURNS TO THEATERS MARCH 2nd and 7th]. ''AM FM Magazine''. February 27, 2017. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> Although originally scheduled to be shown only on one night,<ref>Ham, Ken (February 16, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/02/16/is-genesis-history-theaters-next-week/ Is Genesis History? in Theaters Next Week!]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> ''Is Genesis History?'' performed so well that it was given two encore showings on March 2 and 7 of that year.<ref name="LawCP"/><ref name="Ham2/28/17"/><ref name="AMFMMag"/> Altogether, including the two encore showings, 215,000 people bought tickets for the film, and the film earned a box office of $2,570,355.<ref name="TheNumbers"/><ref name="FinalBoxOffice">[https://isgenesishistory.com/reviews/ Reviews, Endorsements, & Info on the Film]. ''Is Genesis History?''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref> The movie was the second highest-grossing event – and the highest-grossing movie – organized by Fathom Events in 2017, and it was one out of only six Fathom Events to gross over $2 million that year.<ref>{{cite web | last1=McNary | first1=Dave | title=Box Office: Fathom Events Sees Soaring 2017 Performance (EXCLUSIVE) | url=http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-fathom-events-2017-performance-1202643479/ | date=December 18, 2017 | publisher=''Variety'' | accessdate=December 20, 2017}}</ref> The DVD and VOD of ''Is Genesis History?'' also made it into the top 10 lists of the iTunes Store Independent Films Chart (10th place) and Amazon's Best Selling Documentary list (4th place) by April 16, 2017.<ref name="ContinuedSuccess">Law, Jeannie (April 24, 2017). [https://www.christianpost.com/news/is-genesis-history-film-on-young-earth-creationism-makes-history-with-continued-success-181374/ 'Is Genesis History?' Film on Young Earth Creationism Makes History With Continued Success]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved January 20, 2018.</ref> It was one of the most successful documentaries in 2017.<ref>Rubin, Rebecca (July 2, 2018). [https://variety.com/2018/film/box-office/three-identical-strangers-rbg-and-wont-you-be-my-neighbor-box-office-1202862893/ Breakout Docs: How Mister Rogers, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Identical Triplets Became Box Office Stars]. ''Variety''. Retrieved July 26, 2018.</ref>

''Is Genesis History?'' was shown in some [[Canada|Canadian]] theaters on March 14.<ref name="AdventistReview"/><ref>[https://www.facebook.com/isgenesishistory/photos/a.358811944473403.1073741828.270913396596592/399909587030305/?type=3&theater ''Is Genesis History?''] ''Facebook''. March 8, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2018.</ref>

''Is Genesis History?'' was later released on DVD and Blu-ray.<ref name="DVDBluRay">Ham, Ken (March 8, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/03/08/is-genesis-history-documentary-dvd-blu-ray/ Is Genesis History? Documentary Available Soon on DVD and Blu-ray]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> The DVD/Blu-ray release included bonus features, including interviews with scientists and other scholars that were not able to make it into the final film cut.

''Is Genesis History?'' was shown again for a one-year anniversary event on February 22, 2018,<ref>Ham, Ken (January 28, 2018). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2018/01/28/is-genesis-history-documentary-back-theaters-february-22/ ''Is Genesis History?'' Documentary Back in Theaters February 22]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 28, 2018.</ref> being shown in over 850 theaters in the United States and showing a bonus scene of [[Wheaton College]] students at the [[Ark Encounter]].<ref>Showalter, Brandon (February 21, 2018). [https://www.christianpost.com/news/young-earth-creationist-wheaton-college-students-speak-at-1-year-anniversary-release-is-genesis-history-218669/ Young Earth Creationist, Wheaton College Students Speak at 1-Y Anniv. Release of 'Is Genesis History?']. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved March 7, 2018.</ref><ref>[https://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=259282 Popular documentary featuring LU geology professor returns to theaters]. ''Liberty University''. Retrieved March 7, 2018.</ref>

===Other activities===
The makers of ''Is Genesis History?'' decided to expand beyond the movie. In June 2017, the filmmakers held a conference for students and educators,<ref>Ham, Ken (May 10, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/05/10/new-is-genesis-history-conference-this-summer/ New ''Is Genesis History?'' Conference This Summer]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 20, 2018.</ref> and at the end of 2017, the filmmakers released a Bible study book based on the film.<ref>Ham, Ken (December 31, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/12/31/genesis-history-bible-study-now-available/ ''Is Genesis History?'' Bible Study Now Available]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 20, 2018.</ref>

==Reception==
===Positive===
The [[Christian apologetics]] ministry [[Answers in Genesis]] endorsed ''Is Genesis History?'' prior to its release. AiG's enthusiasm for the film did not decrease after its release in theaters.<ref name="Ham2/28/17"/><ref name="DVDBluRay"/> The words of AiG President [[Ken Ham]] on January 6, 2017:<ref>Ham, Ken (January 6, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/01/06/genesis-history-film-coming-theaters/ ''Is Genesis History?'' Film Coming to Theaters]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref>
{{cquote|I’m thrilled to recommend the brand-new documentary-style film Is Genesis History?, coming to theaters Thursday, February 23, 2017, for one night only. This film delves into various scientific disciplines to see if the evidence confirms evolution and millions of years or creation in six days and the global Flood.}}

Other Christian creationists also highly reviewed the film. The [[Institute for Creation Research]] stated that "Dr. Tackett and Compass Media produced a high-quality documentary and took an unapologetic stand for a historical Genesis. Those of us at ICR who have seen the film wholly endorse it."<ref>Hebert, Jake, PhD.; Thomas, Brian, M.S. (March 1, 2017). [https://www.icr.org/article/9868/ Reviewing 'Is Genesis History?']. ''Institute for Creation Research''. Retrieved March 11, 2017.</ref>

Jerry Newcombe, in ''WorldNetDaily'', endorsed the film after conducting several interviews with participants in the film:<ref>Newcombe, Jerry (February 14, 2017). [https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-genesis-history-a-must-see-movie/ 'Is Genesis History?' -- a must-see movie]. ''WND''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>
{{cquote|It is my view that those who see "Is Genesis History?" – which is beautifully shot – will come away with the same conviction [as George Grant in the film on the importance of Genesis]. Perhaps, the tagline for the film says it all: "Two competing views … one compelling truth."}}

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] highly endorsed the film, saying that "after the spectacular footage and important scientific and exegetical information, the documentary closes with a very effective explanation about why Genesis matters for the Christian faith."<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan. [https://creation.com/is-genesis-history-doco-review Is Genesis History?: Review of new documentary]. ''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>

Henry B. Smith of [[Associates for Biblical Research]]<ref>Smith, Henry B., Jr. (January 18, 2017). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/01/18/A-Great-New-Film-Is-Genesis-History.aspx A Great New Film: Is Genesis History?]. ''Associates for Biblical Research''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> and Megan Basham of WORLD Magazine<ref>Basham, Megan (February 22, 2017). [https://world.wng.org/2017/02/deep_time_out Deep time out]. ''WORLD Magazine''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref> also strongly endorsed the film. Timothy G. Standish of the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]]'s [[Geoscience Research Institute]] gave the film an overall positive review.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Standish | first1=Timothy G. | title=A Review of the Documentary Film "Is Genesis History?" | url=http://grisda.org/a-review-of-the-documentary-film-is-genesis-history/ | date=February 17, 2017 | publisher=Geoscience Research Institute | accessdate=September 12, 2017}}</ref> In its list of the top 25 conservative documentaries in existence, [[Newsmax]] rated the film #12.<ref>Anderson, Troy (April 4, 2018). [https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/conservative-documentaries-best-all-time/2018/04/04/id/852462/ Newsmax's Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time]. ''Newsmax''. Retrieved April 6, 2018.</ref> Watch Henry B. Smith interview Director Thomas Purifoy<ref>Is Genesis History?: Digging for Truth Episode 65[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paZFN_AiWTw]</ref>.

Anthony Hayes of the ''Baltimore Post-Examiner'' positively reviewed the film, stating that "''Is Genesis History?'' succinctly lays out the scientific case for a special creation; then asks the question, 'How does a little information from the past affect how one lives today?'"<ref>Hayes, Anthony (February 25, 2017). [http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/genesis-history-new-film-ably-addresses-age-old-question/2017/02/25#sthash.sD6XN8Fb.WEJO6gFv.dpbs Is Genesis History? New film ably addresses age-old question]. ''Baltimore Post-Examiner''. Retrieved March 14, 2017.</ref>

In March 2019, Alex Newman of ''[[The New American]]'' cited the film as an example of the growing scientific dissent from evolutionary theory.<ref>Newman, Alex (March 11, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/31694-over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory]. ''The New American''. Retrieved March 17, 2019.</ref>

===Negative===
Organizations that accept evolution and oppose biblical creation, such as [[The BioLogos Foundation]],<ref name="Biologos">{{cite web | last1=Davidson | first1=Gregg | last2=Duff | first2=Joel | last3=Wolgemuth | first3=Ken |title=A Geological Response to the Movie "Is Genesis History?" | url=http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/a-geological-response-to-the-movie-is-genesis-history | date=March 1, 2017 | publisher=The BioLogos Foundation | accessdate=August 22, 2017}} See also:
*Walker, Tas (June 22, 2017). [https://creation.com/biologos-fails-with-is-genesis-history-critique Biologos fails with Is Genesis History critique]. ''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved March 9, 2018.</ref> [[Reasons To Believe]],<ref>{{cite web | last1=Zweerink | first1=Jeff | title=Thoughts on Is Genesis History? | url=http://www.reasons.org/blogs/impact-events/thoughts-on-is-genesis-history | date=February 24, 2017 | publisher=Reasons To Believe | accessdate=August 22, 2017}}</ref> and [[The Gospel Coalition]],<ref>{{cite web | last1=Ortlund | first1=Gavin | title=‘Is Genesis History?’: Revisiting an Age-Old Debate | url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-genesis-history-revisiting-an-age-old-debate | date=May 5, 2017 | publisher=The Gospel Coalition | accessdate=August 22, 2017}}</ref> gave the film negative reviews. According to Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth of Biologos, despite the "excellent" cinematography of the film, "the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature."<ref name="Biologos"/>

Paul Nelson, who was interviewed for the film, later published an article stating that the film distorted his arguments and presented "a false dichotomy" between naturalistic evolution and young Earth creationism while omitting other viewpoints.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Nelson | first1=Paul | title=New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It | url=https://evolutionnews.org/2017/02/new_film_is_gen/ | date=February 23, 2017 | publisher=Discovery Institute | accessdate=August 22, 2017}}</ref> Thomas Purifoy, the film's director and producer, responded with a blog post entitled ''A Tale of Two Dichotomies'' in which he presented the full film interview with Nelson as evidence to the contrary of Nelson's statements, and Purifoy stated that "as a philosopher, Paul seemed to be shifting back to viewing things from a philosophical perspective. The film, however, was not about comparing two different philosophies, but two different ''histories''."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://isgenesishistory.com/tale-two-dichotomies/|title=A Tale of Two Dichotomies – Is Genesis History?|date=2017-06-13|work=Is Genesis History?|access-date=2017-08-30|language=en-US}}</ref>

==Film's resources==
*[http://isgenesishistory.com/videos Videos], on the film's website
*[http://isgenesishistory.com/downloads Downloads], on the film's website
*[https://isgenesishistory.com/notes/full-interviews/ Partial list of full interviews], more to come

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==
*[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/ Official website]
*[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=isgenesishistory.htm Box Office Mojo profile]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
[[Category:Documentary Films]]
[[Category:Christian Movies]]

Archaeology

2019-11-09T19:29:53Z

Snoopy2: ed.

'''Archaeology''' (or '''archeology''') is the study of past [[human]] life as revealed by preserved relics.<ref>Exploring Creation with General Science, by Dr. Jay L. Wile</ref>

In the US, archeology is the branch of American [[Anthropology]] that reconstructs, describes, and interprets human behavior and [[cultural]] patterns through material remains such as [[artifact]]s, ecofacts, and lithics.<ref>Kottak, Conrad. 2005. ''Window on humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology'' New York: McGraw-Hill</ref> In most [[European]] universities, archaeology is typically a part of the [[history]] department.

Archaeology generally is divided by specialty. Historic archaeologists concentrate on sites and cultures associated with modern times. Classical archaeologists are interested in ancient [[Egypt]], [[Greece]], [[Rome]], and other similar societies. [[Prehistoric]] archaeologists tend to concentrate on societies not possessing a written language. There is also the field of Cultural Resource Management, or Applied Archaeology, which is entailed with screening for, and then preserving archaeological sites. There is also a number of [[Biblical]] archaeologists interested in excavating sites related to Biblical stories or timeframes.

Archaeologists rely on the careful excavation interpretation of artifacts in order to explore the past. The quintessential experience of all archaeologists is the "dig", or field excavation. In actuality, an excavation is nothing more than very precise, very scientific hole digging. Archaeologists must measure and record the exact position in three dimensions of an artifact, and also note differences in soil composition, stratification, color, and consistency. When an arcaheological dig is complete, the researchers must be able to reconstruct the exact locations of all the artifacts and ecofacts that were removed from the site. Failure to do this results in a loss of context, and ultimately data that are unusable.

Watch WGN’s Mark Suppelsa interview Purdue University Associate Professor Larry Mykytiuk on more than 50 people named in the Hebrew Bible being confirmed archeologically.<ref>JULY 2017 WGN-TV. "Purdue professor’s quest brings names from the Bible to life"[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/]</ref> Read the book.<ref>Larry Mykytiuk. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.[https://books.google.com/books?id=CS9DKZgzfDIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Identifying+Biblical+Persons+in+Northwest+Semitic+Inscriptions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX_IOXiKPXAhWCy4MKHTHcBIEQ6AEIFDAA#v=onepage&q=Identifying%20Biblical%20Persons%20in%20Northwest%20Semitic%20Inscriptions&f=false]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2018 related to the Bible.<ref>Digging for Truth-Episode 15: Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of 2018[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4567-digging-for-truth-episode-54-top-ten-discoveries-of-2018-in-biblical-archaeology]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2017 related to the Bible.<ref>Digging for Truth-Episode 15: Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of 2017[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4308-digging-for-truth-episode-15-top-ten-archaeological-discoveries-of-2017]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Gates of Hell]] (Tel Dan)
* [[Israel Tourism]] for biblical archaeological and other sites of Israel
* [[Church#Possibly the first Church Structure|Possibly the first Church Structure]]
* [[Göbekli Tepe]], the most ancient discovered temple built in the 10th millennium BC, ca 11,500 years ago.
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Archaeological stratigraphy]]

== References ==
<References/>

==External links==
* [http://www.biblearchaeology.org Associates for Biblical Research]
* [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine]

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:History]]

User talk:Snoopy2

2019-11-09T19:21:17Z

Snoopy2: nn

{{Welcome}}
If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on [[Ropen‎]], you might want to try using <code><nowiki><ref>Reference text here</ref></nowiki></code> to add the citation. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Punctuation ==

Favorite movie: "The Wrong Friend"
Favorite Book: "Gray is the color of hope"

== Punctuation ==

Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
J-I tp.p.g.[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/garelli_fs_tadmor_1991.pdf] n.n. saa [https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37115745/T.P._III_-_738_Borders.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510949997&Signature=wOoLlPDcmY308amEP9h1HdZU0NE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBorders_and_Districts_in_Descriptions_of.pdf] dk.e.eth[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/a-new-low-for-evolutionary-ethics/] z.m[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTikeTomelY]
phlogist[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/][https://www.thecollegefix.com/i-was-forced-out-of-my-phd-program-because-of-my-open-faith-in-jesus-christ-heres-my-story/]

== ref ==
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin
by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.

== suggestion ==

Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments? -- unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]

:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter ==
watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79foBIrar4]
I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).

The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia ==
see
Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky.
All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go.
Any practical suggestions are welcome.

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again==
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys:
instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it?
No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
:What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow ''anyone'' to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: [[Conservapedia:Edit]]. You have not been blocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
::Night mode is a nuisance, so if that is what you are talking about, I do apologize. If you stay around and make productive edits, you may be enabled to bypass it and edit during the EDT night. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).

Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence
By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 [https://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-researcher-establishes-link-between-threats-and-abuse-cases-domestic-partner-violence]

This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) [http://www.cdar.uky.edu/CoerciveControl/docs/Human%20Trafficking%20in%20Kentucky.pdf]

Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it.
Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.

Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't

{{unsigned|Snoopy2}}

:Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

User talk:Snoopy2

2019-11-09T19:20:02Z

Snoopy2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us

{{Welcome}}
If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on [[Ropen‎]], you might want to try using <code><nowiki><ref>Reference text here</ref></nowiki></code> to add the citation. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

== Punctuation ==

Favorite movie: "The Wrong Friend"
Favorite Book: "Gray is the color of hope"

== Punctuation ==

Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
J-I tp.p.g.[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/garelli_fs_tadmor_1991.pdf] n.n. saa [https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37115745/T.P._III_-_738_Borders.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510949997&Signature=wOoLlPDcmY308amEP9h1HdZU0NE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBorders_and_Districts_in_Descriptions_of.pdf] dk.e.eth[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/a-new-low-for-evolutionary-ethics/] z.m[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8kupNab8us]
phlogist[https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/four-darwin-heretics-a-readers-roundup/][https://www.thecollegefix.com/i-was-forced-out-of-my-phd-program-because-of-my-open-faith-in-jesus-christ-heres-my-story/]

== ref ==
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin
by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.

== suggestion ==

Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments? -- unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]

:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter ==
watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79foBIrar4]
I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).

The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia ==
see
Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky.
All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go.
Any practical suggestions are welcome.

== Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again==
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys:
instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it?
No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
:What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow ''anyone'' to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: [[Conservapedia:Edit]]. You have not been blocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
::Night mode is a nuisance, so if that is what you are talking about, I do apologize. If you stay around and make productive edits, you may be enabled to bypass it and edit during the EDT night. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).

Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence
By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 [https://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-researcher-establishes-link-between-threats-and-abuse-cases-domestic-partner-violence]

This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) [http://www.cdar.uky.edu/CoerciveControl/docs/Human%20Trafficking%20in%20Kentucky.pdf]

Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it.
Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.

Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't

{{unsigned|Snoopy2}}

:Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

USS Scorpion (SSN 589)

2019-11-03T22:24:35Z

Snoopy2: /* Soviet victim? */

{{Ship
| name=USS ''Scorpion'' (SSN 589)
| image=ScorpionSSN589.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:50 star flag.png|40px]] [[Image:50 star jack.png|30px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=United States Navy
| built=General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division Groton, Connecticut
| authorized=
| keellaid=20 August 1958
| launched=19 December 1959
| commissioned=29 July 1960
| decommissioned=
| status=Sunk south of Azores 21 May 1968
| type=Submarine (nuclear-powered) ''Skipjack''-class
| displ=3,057 t suface 3,500 t submerged
| length=251 ft 9 in
| beam=31 ft 7 in
| draft=
| speed=20+ knots
| test=
| armament=Six torpedo tubes
| crew=99 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
'''USS ''Scorpion''''' (SSN 589) was a nuclear-powered submarine of the ''Skipjack''-class, and the sixth vessel in the [[United States Navy]] to bear the name; she also bears the distinction of being the second such submarine lost in as yet unclear circumstances in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] while returning home from deployment in 1968.

==History==
''Scorpion'' (SSN-589) was laid down on 20 August 1958 by the Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corporation in Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 19 December 1959; sponsored by Mrs. Elizabeth S. Morrison; and commissioned on 29 July 1960, Commander Norman B. Bessac in command.

Assigned to Submarine Squadron 6, Division 62, ''Scorpion'' departed New London, Conn., on 24 August for a two-month deployment in European waters. During that period, she participated in exercises with units of the 6th Fleet and of other NATO ([[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]) navies. After returning to New England in late October, she trained along the eastern seaboard until May 1961, then crossed the Atlantic again for operations which took her into the summer. On 9 August, she returned to New London and, a month later, shifted to Norfolk, Va.

With Norfolk her home port for the remainder of her career, Scorpion specialized in the development of nuclear submarine warfare tactics. Varying her role from hunter to hunted, she participated in exercises which ranged along the Atlantic coast and in the Bermuda and Puerto Rican operating areas; then, from June 1963 to May 1964, she interrupted her operations for an overhaul at Charleston, [[South Carolina]]. Resuming duty off the eastern seaboard in late spring, she again interrupted that duty from 4 August to 8 October to make a transatlantic patrol. In the spring of 1965, she conducted a similar patrol in European waters.

During the late winter and early spring of 1966, and again in the fall, she was deployed for special operations. Following the completion of those assignments, her commanding officer received the [[Navy Commendation Medal]] for outstanding leadership, foresight, and professional skill. Other Scorpion officers and men were cited for meritorious achievement.

On 1 February 1967, ''Scorpion'' entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for another extended overhaul. In late October, she commenced refresher training and weapons system acceptance tests. Following type training out of Norfolk, she got underway on 15 February 1968 for a Mediterranean deployment. She operated with the 6th Fleet, into May, and then headed west for home. On 21 May, she indicated her position to be about 50 miles south of the [[Azores]]. Six days later, she was reported overdue at Norfolk.

A search was initiated, but, on 5 June, Scorpion and her crew were declared "presumed lost." Her name was struck from the Navy list on 30 June.

==Discovery of the wreck==
The search continued, however; and, at the end of October, the Navy's oceanographic research ship, ''Mizar'' (T-AGOR-11) located sections of ''Scorpion's'' hull in more than 10,000 feet of water about 400 miles southwest of the Azores. Subsequently, the Court of Inquiry was reconvened and other vessels, including the submersible ''Trieste'' were dispatched to the scene and collected a myriad of pictures and other data.

Although the cause of her loss is still not ascertainable, the most probable event was the inadvertent activation of the battery of a Mark 37 torpedo during a torpedo inspection. The torpedo, in a fully ready condition and without a propeller guard, then began a live "hot run" within the tube. Alternatively, the torpedo may have exploded in the tube owing to an uncontrollable fire in the torpedo room.

The explosion—recorded elsewhere as a very loud acoustic event—broke the boat into two major pieces, with the forward hull section, including the torpedo room and most of the operations compartment, creating one impact trench while the aft section, including the reactor compartment and engine room, created a second impact trench. The sail is detached and lies nearby in a large debris field.

Owing to the pressurized-water nuclear reactor in the engine room, deep ocean radiological monitoring operations were conducted in August and September 1986. The site had been previously monitored in 1968 and 1979 and none of the samples obtained showed any evidence of release of radioactivity.

==Bermuda Triangle connection==
Several authors have added the loss of the sub to the list of victims of the [[Bermuda Triangle]], despite the fact that the sub sank well outside the Triangle's traditional boundaries. One author (''Limbo of the Lost'') had even "stretched" the apex of the Triangle to cover the site of the sinking; he as well as the others who placed the sub within their books added the level of mystery the Triangle story required; indeed, the loss of the sub still has explanations with are to this date still unknown. But to include ''Scorpion'' as a victim of the paranormal that is the hallmark of the Bermuda Triangle tale is seen as a disservice to the families of the crew, as well as the Navy as a whole.

==Soviet victim?==
One issue that gained ground during the 1980s was the allegation that the ''Scorpion'' was sunk after being discovered by a Soviet flotilla, which the sub had been given a message to divert from her homeward course and shadow. Author Peter Earley postulated that in 1968 Naval communications were being read with ease, courtesy of a U.S. Navy warrant officer-turned-spy named John Walker. Although sinking by the Soviets was, and remains, unproven, Walker did serious damage to the Navy and his country. Top secret code books, code keys, and messages were stolen by him and passed along to the Soviets for nearly 20 years before being caught in 1985. One of new communications machines he gave information of in 1968 was onboard USS ''Pueblo'', which was seized by [[North Korea]] soon after Walker began his spying.
Authors Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler interviewed no fewer than four retired Soviet naval officers who confirmed that they sank the USS Scorpion in revenge for the loss their submarine near Hawaii. One of them specified that a helicopter took off from one ship, fired the anti-submarine torpedo and landed on another ship so that no one could see the torpedo was gone. After the loss of the [[USS Pueblo]], the [[Lyndon Johnson]] administration chose to cover up this atrocity rather than acknowledge the loss of another ship.<ref>All hands down : the true story of the Soviet attack on the USS Scorpion / Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2008.</ref>

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s7/scorpion-vi.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Submarines]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-11-03T22:20:55Z

Snoopy2: Fieger

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended [[Jack Kevorkian]], rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. [[Scriptural geologists]] opposed this in the 19th century. Fieger, the 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: "If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref> Roy Maynard, New(er) Democrat? World Magazine, August 29, 1998.[https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat]</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]
*[[Darwinism]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Archaeology

2019-11-03T22:16:42Z

Snoopy2: archaeological discoveries

'''Archaeology''' (or '''archeology''') is the study of past [[human]] life as revealed by preserved relics.<ref>Exploring Creation with General Science, by Dr. Jay L. Wile</ref>

In the US, archeology is the branch of American [[Anthropology]] that reconstructs, describes, and interprets human behavior and [[cultural]] patterns through material remains such as [[artifact]]s, ecofacts, and lithics.<ref>Kottak, Conrad. 2005. ''Window on humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology'' New York: McGraw-Hill</ref> In most [[European]] universities, archaeology is typically a part of the [[history]] department.

Archaeology generally is divided by specialty. Historic archaeologists concentrate on sites and cultures associated with modern times. Classical archaeologists are interested in ancient [[Egypt]], [[Greece]], [[Rome]], and other similar societies. [[Prehistoric]] archaeologists tend to concentrate on societies not possessing a written language. There is also the field of Cultural Resource Management, or Applied Archaeology, which is entailed with screening for, and then preserving archaeological sites. There is also a number of [[Biblical]] archaeologists interested in excavating sites related to Biblical stories or timeframes.

Archaeologists rely on the careful excavation interpretation of artifacts in order to explore the past. The quintessential experience of all archaeologists is the "dig", or field excavation. In actuality, an excavation is nothing more than very precise, very scientific hole digging. Archaeologists must measure and record the exact position in three dimensions of an artifact, and also note differences in soil composition, stratification, color, and consistency. When an arcaheological dig is complete, the researchers must be able to reconstruct the exact locations of all the artifacts and ecofacts that were removed from the site. Failure to do this results in a loss of context, and ultimately data that are unusable.

Watch WGN’s Mark Suppelsa interview Purdue University Associate Professor Larry Mykytiuk on more than 50 people named in the Hebrew Bible being confirmed archeologically.<ref>JULY 2017 WGN-TV. "Purdue professor’s quest brings names from the Bible to life"[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/]</ref>[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/] Read the book.<ref>Larry Mykytiuk. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.[https://books.google.com/books?id=CS9DKZgzfDIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Identifying+Biblical+Persons+in+Northwest+Semitic+Inscriptions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX_IOXiKPXAhWCy4MKHTHcBIEQ6AEIFDAA#v=onepage&q=Identifying%20Biblical%20Persons%20in%20Northwest%20Semitic%20Inscriptions&f=false]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2018 related to the Bible.<ref>Digging for Truth-Episode 15: Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of 2018[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4567-digging-for-truth-episode-54-top-ten-discoveries-of-2018-in-biblical-archaeology]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2017 related to the Bible.<ref>Digging for Truth-Episode 15: Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of 2017[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4308-digging-for-truth-episode-15-top-ten-archaeological-discoveries-of-2017]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Gates of Hell]] (Tel Dan)
* [[Israel Tourism]] for biblical archaeological and other sites of Israel
* [[Church#Possibly the first Church Structure|Possibly the first Church Structure]]
* [[Göbekli Tepe]], the most ancient discovered temple built in the 10th millennium BC, ca 11,500 years ago.
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Archaeological stratigraphy]]

== References ==
<References/>

==External links==
* [http://www.biblearchaeology.org Associates for Biblical Research]
* [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine]

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:History]]

Archaeology

2019-11-03T21:53:17Z

Snoopy2: archaeological discoveries

'''Archaeology''' (or '''archeology''') is the study of past [[human]] life as revealed by preserved relics.<ref>Exploring Creation with General Science, by Dr. Jay L. Wile</ref>

In the US, archeology is the branch of American [[Anthropology]] that reconstructs, describes, and interprets human behavior and [[cultural]] patterns through material remains such as [[artifact]]s, ecofacts, and lithics.<ref>Kottak, Conrad. 2005. ''Window on humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology'' New York: McGraw-Hill</ref> In most [[European]] universities, archaeology is typically a part of the [[history]] department.

Archaeology generally is divided by specialty. Historic archaeologists concentrate on sites and cultures associated with modern times. Classical archaeologists are interested in ancient [[Egypt]], [[Greece]], [[Rome]], and other similar societies. [[Prehistoric]] archaeologists tend to concentrate on societies not possessing a written language. There is also the field of Cultural Resource Management, or Applied Archaeology, which is entailed with screening for, and then preserving archaeological sites. There is also a number of [[Biblical]] archaeologists interested in excavating sites related to Biblical stories or timeframes.

Archaeologists rely on the careful excavation interpretation of artifacts in order to explore the past. The quintessential experience of all archaeologists is the "dig", or field excavation. In actuality, an excavation is nothing more than very precise, very scientific hole digging. Archaeologists must measure and record the exact position in three dimensions of an artifact, and also note differences in soil composition, stratification, color, and consistency. When an arcaheological dig is complete, the researchers must be able to reconstruct the exact locations of all the artifacts and ecofacts that were removed from the site. Failure to do this results in a loss of context, and ultimately data that are unusable.

Watch WGN’s Mark Suppelsa interview Purdue University Associate Professor Larry Mykytiuk on more than 50 people named in the Hebrew Bible being confirmed archeologically.<ref>JULY 2017 WGN-TV. "Purdue professor’s quest brings names from the Bible to life"[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/]</ref>[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/] Read the book.<ref>Larry Mykytiuk. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.[https://books.google.com/books?id=CS9DKZgzfDIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Identifying+Biblical+Persons+in+Northwest+Semitic+Inscriptions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX_IOXiKPXAhWCy4MKHTHcBIEQ6AEIFDAA#v=onepage&q=Identifying%20Biblical%20Persons%20in%20Northwest%20Semitic%20Inscriptions&f=false]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2018 related to the Bible.<ref>[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4567-digging-for-truth-episode-54-top-ten-discoveries-of-2018-in-biblical-archaeology]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2017 related to the Bible.<ref>[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4308-digging-for-truth-episode-15-top-ten-archaeological-discoveries-of-2017]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Gates of Hell]] (Tel Dan)
* [[Israel Tourism]] for biblical archaeological and other sites of Israel
* [[Church#Possibly the first Church Structure|Possibly the first Church Structure]]
* [[Göbekli Tepe]], the most ancient discovered temple built in the 10th millennium BC, ca 11,500 years ago.
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Archaeological stratigraphy]]

== References ==
<References/>

==External links==
* [http://www.biblearchaeology.org Associates for Biblical Research]
* [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine]

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:History]]

Archaeology

2019-11-03T21:52:24Z

Snoopy2: archaeological discoveries

'''Archaeology''' (or '''archeology''') is the study of past [[human]] life as revealed by preserved relics.<ref>Exploring Creation with General Science, by Dr. Jay L. Wile</ref>

In the US, archeology is the branch of American [[Anthropology]] that reconstructs, describes, and interprets human behavior and [[cultural]] patterns through material remains such as [[artifact]]s, ecofacts, and lithics.<ref>Kottak, Conrad. 2005. ''Window on humanity: A Concise Introduction to Anthropology'' New York: McGraw-Hill</ref> In most [[European]] universities, archaeology is typically a part of the [[history]] department.

Archaeology generally is divided by specialty. Historic archaeologists concentrate on sites and cultures associated with modern times. Classical archaeologists are interested in ancient [[Egypt]], [[Greece]], [[Rome]], and other similar societies. [[Prehistoric]] archaeologists tend to concentrate on societies not possessing a written language. There is also the field of Cultural Resource Management, or Applied Archaeology, which is entailed with screening for, and then preserving archaeological sites. There is also a number of [[Biblical]] archaeologists interested in excavating sites related to Biblical stories or timeframes.

Archaeologists rely on the careful excavation interpretation of artifacts in order to explore the past. The quintessential experience of all archaeologists is the "dig", or field excavation. In actuality, an excavation is nothing more than very precise, very scientific hole digging. Archaeologists must measure and record the exact position in three dimensions of an artifact, and also note differences in soil composition, stratification, color, and consistency. When an arcaheological dig is complete, the researchers must be able to reconstruct the exact locations of all the artifacts and ecofacts that were removed from the site. Failure to do this results in a loss of context, and ultimately data that are unusable.

Watch WGN’s Mark Suppelsa interview Purdue University Associate Professor Larry Mykytiuk on more than 50 people named in the Hebrew Bible being confirmed archeologically.<ref>JULY 2017 WGN-TV. "Purdue professor’s quest brings names from the Bible to life"[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/]</ref>[http://wgntv.com/2017/07/10/purdue-professors-quest-brings-names-from-the-bible-to-life/] Read the book.<ref>Larry Mykytiuk. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.[https://books.google.com/books?id=CS9DKZgzfDIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Identifying+Biblical+Persons+in+Northwest+Semitic+Inscriptions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX_IOXiKPXAhWCy4MKHTHcBIEQ6AEIFDAA#v=onepage&q=Identifying%20Biblical%20Persons%20in%20Northwest%20Semitic%20Inscriptions&f=false]</ref>

Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2018 related to the Bible.<ref>[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4567-digging-for-truth-episode-54-top-ten-discoveries-of-2018-in-biblical-archaeology]</ref>
Join co-host Scott Lanser as he interviews special guest Pastor Bryan Windle, as shares the top 10 archaeological discoveries of 2017 related to the Bible.<ref>[https://biblearchaeology.org/mediainfo/digging-for-truth/digging-for-truth-episodes/4308-digging-for-truth-episode-15-top-ten-archaeological-discoveries-of-2017]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Gates of Hell]] (Tel Dan)
* [[Israel Tourism]] for biblical archaeological and other sites of Israel
* [[Church#Possibly the first Church Structure|Possibly the first Church Structure]]
* [[Göbekli Tepe]], the most ancient discovered temple built in the 10th millennium BC, ca 11,500 years ago.
* [[Pseudoarchaeology]]
* [[Archaeological stratigraphy]]

== References ==
<References/>

==External links==
* [http://www.biblearchaeology.org Associates for Biblical Research]
* [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine]

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:History]]

Darwinism

2019-10-26T16:43:53Z

Snoopy2: /* See also */

'''Darwinism''' is the fanciful, [[materialism|materialistic]] belief that all living creatures are descended from one common ancestor, and improved genetically by random mutations and some vague form of [[natural selection]].

It is named for the nineteenth century English naturalist [[Charles Darwin]], who held that [[natural selection]] in combination with random [[mutation]] is the force of [[evolution]].<ref>http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Darwinism</ref>

A popular documentary, ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', aptly described how [[Adolf Hitler]] followed Darwin's ideas to their logical conclusion: the wholesale slaughter of millions of people.

Watch a biology professor who grew up under [[communism]] share what it was like to live in a society based on Darwin’s theory of evolution. He also discusses some amazing evidence of [[intelligent design]] in our cells.<ref>Disinherit the Wind: Growing Up in a Darwinian State, Posted on September 18, 2017, Discovery Institute.[https://discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/09/disinherit-the-wind-growing-up-in-a-darwinian-state/]</ref>

Science historian Michael Flannery tells us of his belated discovery of the Alpbach Symposium held in March 1968<ref>'''Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences''' - The Alpbach Symposium, 1968. Hardcover – 1969, by Arthur Koestler (Editor),‎ J. R. Smythies (Editor).</ref> where a number of leading thinkers ([[Hayek]]) openly doubted Darwinism and the neo-Darwinian synthesis.<ref>Alpbach Symposium: Another 1960s revolt by serious thinkers against Darwinism, Uncommon Descent, October 14, 2017.[https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/alpbach-symposium-another-1960s-revolt-by-serious-thinkers-against-darwinism/]</ref> Two years earlier the Wistar Institute gave mathematical reasons for their dissent from the neo-Darwinian synthesis.<ref>50th Anniversary of the 1966 Wistar Symposium! Mathematical Challenges to the Theory of Evolution [https://www.3dwebnow.com/Science2016/originalsymposium.html]</ref>

The modern version of the [[theory of evolution]], which tries to correct the more obvious errors in Darwin's original theory, is sometimes called "[[Neo-Darwinism]]".

The [[theory of natural selection]] is one of two major evolutionary theories advanced by Darwin, the other being the [[theory of descent with modification]].<ref>http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Darwinism</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Evolutionism]]
*[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]
*[[Atheism and evolution]]
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-10-26T16:42:33Z

Snoopy2: Darwinism

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended [[Jack Kevorkian]], rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. [[Scriptural geologists]] opposed this in the 19th century. The 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: "If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref> Roy Maynard, New(er) Democrat? World Magazine, August 29, 1998.[https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat]</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]
*[[Darwinism]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-10-26T16:31:43Z

Snoopy2: Fieger

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended [[Jack Kevorkian]], rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. [[Scriptural geologists]] opposed this in the 19th century. The 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: "If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref> Roy Maynard, New(er) Democrat? World Magazine, August 29, 1998.[https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat]</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-10-26T16:27:45Z

Snoopy2: fieger

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended [[Jack Kevorkian]], rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. The 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: "If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref> Roy Maynard, New(er) Democrat? World Magazine, August 29, 1998.[https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat]</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-10-26T16:25:50Z

Snoopy2: August 29, 1998

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended Kevorkian, rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. The 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: "If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref> Roy Maynard, New(er) Democrat? World Magazine, August 29, 1998.[https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat]</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

2019-10-26T16:19:06Z

Snoopy2: Fieger

[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|CBS News reported:
Americans most likely to believe in only [[evolution]] are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the [[evolution]]ary paradigm via propaganda (see: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]).

Despite the lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and its counter evidential nature, atheists and liberals persist in promoting evolutionary ideas. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolution is not remarkable given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

See also: [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|Evolutionary Paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for [[creation science]] and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

== Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and sociopathy]] and [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and satanic deception]] and [[Atheism and the supernatural]] and [[Atheism and life after death]]

The journal article ''Atheism and the occult'' published in the ''Journal of Social Sciences'' indicated:
{{Cquote|Atheists with a [[sociopathy|sociopathic]] personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice. The results of canonical discriminant analysis have shown that occultist syndrome in atheists is a component of a kind of sociopathic aggression whose latent structure is defined by materialistic-hedonistic orientation, impulsive aggression and asocial aggression in the positive direction, and altruism in the negative direction. Atheists with a sociopathic personality structure have a greater degree of predisposition to express different forms of occult practice.

(Google translated version of the journal article).<ref>[https://www.bib.irb.hr/410284?rad=410284 Atheism and the occult], Journal of Social Sciences, 32 (2008), 2; 357-366]</ref>}}

A very prevalent view of the occult is that it is Satanic (see also: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]).

For more information, please see: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]

== Irreligion, evolutionary belief, other pseudoscience, UFOlogy and the occult ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Atheism and aliens]] and [[Atheism and deception]]
[[File:Carl Sagan.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Carl Sagan]] ]]
The notions of [[extraterrestrial life]] and [[UFO]]logy are fast growing [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] [[religion]]s which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, [[atheism|atheists]], liberals and other promoters of quackery.<ref>https://creation.com/ufology-scientific-religion</ref><ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref> However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, [[exobiology]], evolution and [[Origin of Life|abiogenesis]] are anti-[[Bible|biblical]] ideas which are not supported by sound [[science]].<ref>[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets?]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life - questions and answers]</ref>

The liberal and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[Carl Sagan]], an avid smoker of [[marijuana]] who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestrial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and [[scientism]] no doubt helped inspire Sagan's [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fantasy that evolution was a "fact".<ref>http://www.creationdefense.org/57.htm</ref>

=== Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the ''Toledo Blade'' concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."<ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

=== Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the occult]]

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref>
*[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217643/k.5903/UFOs_and_Alien_Beings.htm UFOs and Alien Beings]
*[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd coming]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]
*[http://www.creation.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers UFO Questions and Answers]</ref> Gary Bates of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote a book entitled ''Alien Intrusion'' which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestrial life and UFUlogy.<ref>http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html</ref>

Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two-year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated: {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demon]]ic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and parapsychologists.<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]].

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist ==
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[https://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[https://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provided any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

== Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ==

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref> In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

== American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]]. According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-[[abortion]] views.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that evolutionary thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of [[abortion|aborting]] babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>https://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>https://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

Geoffrey Fieger, the Michigan lawyer who defended Kevorkian, rejects Christianity because of the factual and logical inconsistency of the Bible's creation history with
his acceptance of old earth geological theory. The 1998 Democratic candidate for governor (MI) said: If it [Christianity] is true, you can't explain the time in which life existed on this earth when there were no human beings. Or maybe God saw fit, prior to the time when humans were here, to send another being down, in the form of a dinosaur; an Incarnation for the dinosaurs."<ref>https://world.wng.org/1998/08/newer_democrat</ref>

==See also==

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Theories of evolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

USS Pueblo

2019-08-22T00:39:35Z

Snoopy2: see also

The '''USS Pueblo''' (AGER-2, originally AKL-44), is a commissioned ship of the [[United States Navy]]. On January 23, 1968, while off Wonsan, [[North Korea]], the ''USS Pueblo'' was attacked by the North Korean [[navy|naval]] and [[air force]]s and seized.<ref>http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_02fall/lerner.htm</ref><ref>http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1869.html</ref> Eighty two surviving crew members were captured and held [[POW|prisoner]] for 11 months, one crew member was killed in the assault. Under inhumane conditions, after eleven months of captivity, ''Pueblo's'' crew was repatriated on December 23, 1968. The ship was retained by North Korea,<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-teen-returns-North-Korea-visit/ss/events/wl/081910jonathanlee/im:/100819/481/urn_publicid_ap_org8aa6932b663e4b1c9b91374714d6af1a/ U.S. teen poses with a North Korean in front of the USS Pueblo]</ref> despite it still being the property of the U.S. Navy.

The North Koreans contended that the ship had violated their territorial waters, a claim denied by the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/ager2.htm</ref>

==See Also==
[[USS Scorpion (SSN 589)]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Warships|Pueblo, USS]]

Lyndon B. Johnson

2019-08-22T00:36:17Z

Snoopy2: /* See Also */

{{Officeholder
|name=Lyndon B. Johnson
|image=LBJ by Shoumatoff.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party|Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Lady Bird Johnson]]
|religion=[[Disciples of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
|vp=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
|preceded=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Richard Nixon]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963
|president=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|preceded=[[Richard Nixon]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Texas
|terms=January 3, 1949 – January 3, 1961
|preceded=W. Lee O'Daniel
|former=y
|succeeded=[[William Blakley]] (interim) 
[[John Tower]] (permanent)
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Texas
|district=10th
|terms=April 10, 1937 – January 3, 1949
|preceded=[[James P. Buchanan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Homer Thornberry]]
}}
}}
'''Lyndon Baines Johnson''' (1908–1973), often referred to as '''LBJ''', was the 36th [[President of the United States of America]] (1963–1969). After serving in the House and Senate since 1937, Johnson was elected Vice President in 1960, and in November 1963, he succeeded to the presidency following President [[John F. Kennedy]]'s assassination. President Kennedy disliked his Vice President Johnson so much that Kennedy ostracized him from social events, and Johnson was perhaps the most crooked, bullying politician ever to become president.<ref>[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm ''LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident Source: John Prados, The White House Tapes'']</ref>

In [[Texas]], Johnson stole his first election to the [[U.S. Senate]], as recounted by historians. As president in 1964, Johnson ordered the [[CIA]] to infiltrate and spy on his [[conservative]] opponent, [[Barry Goldwater]], which enabled Johnson to preempt Goldwater's initiatives with Johnson's own. Johnson also lied about the [[Gulf of Tonkin]] attack in order to boost Jonson's reelection chances in 1964.

Johnson began his career as a liberal [[New Deal]]er, later when he became a senator he initially aligned himself with the Southern Democrats, although by the time he ascended to Senate Leadership he espoused moderate politics in an attempt to bridge both wings of the fractious [[Democratic Party]]. However, as President, he seized the leadership of liberalism citing [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as his role model. Johnson moved the [[Democratic Party]] to the left, and pushed through Congress the [[Great Society]], comprising liberal economic policy including Medicare (free health care for the elderly), Medicaid (free health care for the poor), aid to education, and a major "War on Poverty". As part of his jobs program, he greatly escalated the American troop strength in [[Vietnam]] through [[conscription]], from 16,000 in 1963 to 23,000 by the end of 1964 and finally to 550,000 by early 1968. [[Unemployment]] consequently, remained in check.

Johnson won re-election in a landslide in 1964 over [[conservative]] leader [[Barry Goldwater]], and proceeded to push through a massive expansion of federal programs known as the "Welfare State." This included [[Medicare]], food stamps, and federal spending on education. Johnson also supported the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965, which passed over a Democratic Filibuster.

Johnson's popularity steadily declined after 1966 and his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his Democratic party primarily due to Johnson's mishandling (and micromanagement) of the [[Vietnam War]] (which also ironically involved the [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|intentionally false reporting]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] on the [[Tet Offensive]]). Johnson was humiliated by a primary challenge to his reelection from fellow [[Democrat]] [[Eugene McCarthy]] in early 1968 in [[New Hampshire]], and then LBJ withdrew as a candidate for reelection. His Vice President [[Hubert Humphrey]] lost in the general election due in part to Johnson's unpopularity.

==Early years==
Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored numerous small rural churches in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of [[Baylor University]] during the [[American Civil War]]. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson.

Johnson was born in Stonewall, Texas, in a small farmhouse in a poor farming area along the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and the former Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys. The nearby village of Johnson City, Texas, was named after a relative who came from Georgia. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his eleventh-grade class.<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/36_l_johnson/tguide/l_johnson_dk.html</ref> He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924.<ref>http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp</ref>

In 1926, Johnson enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers' College (now called Texas State University-San Marcos). He worked his way through school, participated in debate and campus politics, edited the school newspaper, and graduated in 1931. Biographer Robert Caro asserts he was known as "the biggest liar on campus." <ref>Caro, Robert A. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1982. p. xx</ref> The college years refined his remarkable skills of persuasion and political organization. One year Johnson taught mostly Mexican American children at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, Texas. When he returned to San Marcos in 1965, after having signed the [[Higher Education Act]], Johnson looked back:
:"''I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this Nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American''."<ref>see [http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm "Remarks at Southwest Texas State College Upon Signing the Higher Education Act of 1965"]</ref>

==Early political career==
After graduation, Johnson briefly taught public speaking at Genesee Community College and debate in a Houston high school, then entered politics. Johnson's father had served five terms in the Texas legislature and was a close friend to one of Texas's rising political figures, Congressman [[Sam Rayburn]]. In 1930, Johnson campaigned for Texas state Senator Welly Hopkins in his run for Congress. Hopkins recommended him to Congressman [[Richard M. Kleberg]], who appointed Johnson as Kleberg's legislative secretary. LBJ was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," a group of Congressional aides, where he cultivated Congressmen, newspapermen and lobbyists. Johnson's friends soon included aides to President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], as well as fellow Texans such as Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. He became a surrogate son to Sam Rayburn.

Johnson married Claudia Alta Taylor (already nicknamed "Lady Bird") of Karnack, Texas on November 17, 1934, after she had attended Georgetown University Law School for several months. They had two daughters, Lynda Bird Johnson, born in 1944, and Luci Baines Johnson, born in 1947. Johnson enjoyed giving people and animals his own LBJ initials; his daughters' given names are examples, as was his dog Little Beagle Johnson.

In 1935, he was appointed head of the Texas [[National Youth Administration]] (NYA), which enabled him to use the government to create educational and job opportunities for young people. He resigned two years later to run for Congress. Johnson was a notoriously tough boss throughout his career, often demanding long workdays and work on weekends; he worked as hard as any of them.<ref>Woods, (2006), p. 131</ref>

==House years==
Johnson resigned from his NYA job in 1937 to run successfully in a special election for a seat in the [[House of Representatives]] representing [[Austin, Texas|Austin]] and the surrounding Hill Country. He ran on a [[New Deal]] platform and was effectively aided by his wife, Lady Bird Johnson.

President Roosevelt found Johnson to be a welcome ally and conduit for information, particularly with regards to issues concerning internal politics in Texas (informally dubbed "Operation Texas") and the machinations of Vice President Garner and House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Johnson was immediately appointed to the powerful Naval Affairs Committee. He worked for rural electrification and other improvements for his district. Johnson steered the projects towards contractors which he personally knew, such as the Brown Brothers, Herman and George, who would finance much of Johnson's future career.<ref>Caro, (1982) is full of details.</ref> In 1941, he ran for the U.S. Senate (while not giving up his House seat) in a special election against the sitting governor, radio personality W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. Johnson was not expected to win against the popular governor, but he ran a strong race and was declared the winner in unofficial returns. He ultimately was defeated by controversial official returns in an election marked by massive fraud on the part of both campaigns.

==Senate years==

In 1948, Johnson won an election for [[U.S. Senate]] by stealing the election, according even to historians sympathetic to him. Johnson ran against former governor Coke Stevenson; neither candidate won a majority of the votes in the election, which under Texas law forced a runoff between Johnson and Stevenson. Johnson then claimed an 87-vote victory over Stevenson in the runoff, which was fraudulent.<ref>See eg Robert A Caro Master of the ''Senate Means of Assent''</ref> After joining the Senate, Johnson established relationships with several senior senators, including [[Richard Russell]]. Johnson was appointed to the powerful [[Armed Services Committee]] in 1950, and became chairman of the Preparedness Subcommittee which brought him into the public spotlight much like [[Harry Truman]] used the "Truman Committee" during the Second World War. He was named minority whip in 1951 under Democratic leader Bob McFarland, and he became the leader of the [[Democratic Party]] in the Senate in 1953. His first major policy, with the support of Russell, was to bypass the Seniority rule in committee assignments, which meant that Senators became reliant on his favor in order to obtain positions on important committees. This move, in combination with his strong personality gave him power of senators that had not been seen before (or since) in Senate History. He is often referred to as the "Master of the Senate". Surprisingly, after he became majority leader in 1955 he supported many of Eisenhower's proposals despite the partisan resistance of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. This allowed him to bask in the reflected glow of Eisenhower's immense popularity and gain a reputation for working across the aisle and getting things done.

Although publicly posing as a Civil Rights hero, in private Johnson was—like most southern Democrats of the 1960s—a racist: When his sometime chauffeur, Robert Parker, told LBJ he'd prefer to be called by his name rather than "boy," "nigger" or "chief," Johnson replied, "As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture."<ref>Robert Parker and Richard L. Rashke, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JKhpZMj8Z6wC Capitol Hill in Black and White]'' (Penguin Group, 1989), ISBN 0515101893, p. v.</ref>

In his capacity as Majority Leader of the Senate, Johnson joined with [[Strom Thurmond]] to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But when Senate Republicans re-introduced the bill, LBJ said, "I'm going to have to bring up the nigger bill again," according to LBJ's White House Special Counsel Harry McPherson.<ref>Michael L. Gillette, [https://web.archive.org/web/20050304042315/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/mcpherson/mcpher06.pdf Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI], 5/16/85, LBJ Library, 16 May 1985.</ref> "Let's face it. Our ass is in a crack. We're gonna have to let this nigger bill pass," he told Senator John Stennis (D-MS), according to a Pulitzer Prize winning<ref>[http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Biography-or-Autobiography Biography or Autobiography]. Past winners & finalists by category. The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved 2012-03-24.</ref> biography.<ref>Caro, Robert A. (2002). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=U87rzAqVhbwC The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3]''. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360.</ref> According to Bancroft Prize winning<ref>[http://library.columbia.edu/about/awards/bancroft/previous_awards.html The Bancroft Prizes: Previous Awards]. The Columbia University Libraries/Information Services</ref> biographer Robert Dallek, he asked Senator Sam Rayburn (D-TX), "Sam, why don't you all let this nigger bill pass?"<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350.</ref> According to former Harvard historian and Johnson staffer Doris Kearns Goodwin, LBJ explained his position to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) thus:
{{cquote|These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.<ref>Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1977). [https://books.google.com/books?id=HS9aAAAAYAAJ Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream]. New York: New American Library. p. 155. ISBN 0451140826</ref>}}

Johnson saw to it that once the bill reached the Senate judiciary committee it was weakened enough to ensure passage, the first passed since Reconstruction. Johnson then took credit. He was a master at balancing the powerful southern wing of the Democratic party with the liberal northern and eastern wing. He would employ very effective tactics of persuasion with senators; including intimidation, flattery, threats and promises. Johnson sought the Democratic nomination for president prior to the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 election]], but accepted the nomination for vice-president following Kennedy's nomination.

==Presidency==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]
{{see also|Great Society|Johnson administration}}
Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn into the [[President of the United States of America|Office of the President]] just hours after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The [[Oath of Office]] took place aboard [[Air Force One]] just prior to the flight to [[Washington DC]] from [[Dallas]]. It was administered by [[Sarah T. Hughes]] (one of the first justices to hear and write the decision for [[Roe v. Wade]] in favor of [[abortion]]).<ref>University of North Texas Libraries, Sarah T. Hughes Collection, http://www.library.unt.edu/archives/historical-manuscripts/historical-manuscripts-exhibits/hughes/</ref> Also, since no Bible could be found aboard Air Force One, Johnson recited the oath with his hand on a [[Roman Catholic]] [[missal]] which had been in Kennedy's desk.<ref>New York Times, "After a Time of Tragedy, a Beginning Toward the 'Great Society,'" January 1973. Online at https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-tragedy.html</ref> Largely because of the KGB's disinformation campaign shortly after the JFK assassination, Johnson was often believed by conspiracy theorists to have been the one who arranged for Kennedy's assassination to get into the presidency. However, declassified CIA documents in 2015 that dated back to the assassination revealed that Johnson learned from the CIA that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been getting visas for escape from the country via Cuba and the Soviet Union only three days after the assassination occurred, making this motive unlikely.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3237770/Declassified-CIA-memo-reveals-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-visited-embassies-Cuba-Soviet-Union-plot-escape-assassinating-John-F-Kennedy.html</ref>

As President, Johnson greatly expanded the federal government with his [[Great Society]] programs. He played a key role in helping the [[civil rights movement]] win legislative victories, pushing for the adoption of the [[Civil Rights Act]] (1964), which outlawed segregation, and the [[Voting Rights Act]] (1965), which guaranteed African-Americans' right to vote. President Johnson's support for civil rights was purely partisan. Discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with two southern governors on Air Force One, LBJ stated, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years,” according to Air Force One steward Robert M. MacMillan. “That was the reason he was pushing the bill," added MacMillan, an African American, "not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic Party. He was phony from the word go.”<ref>Interview with Robert M. MacMillan, March 23, 1993, cited in Ronald Kessler, ''[https://books.google.com/books/about/Inside_the_White_House.html?id=lJz-yIZNE2sC Inside the White House]'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 33, ISBN 0671879197.</ref>

Johnson also appointed [[NAACP]] lawyer [[Thurgood Marshall]] the first African American Supreme Court Justice. When a young White House attorney recommended Federal Judge William Henry Hastie—who had been Marshall's professor at Harvard Law School—as a more qualified African American candidate, LBJ rejected the light-skinned Hastie, explaining, "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Hastie had previously been considered for the Court by Eisenhower in 1956, who shelved the idea because Hastie's nomination would have been "[https://books.google.com/books?id=RAVl_KwcBuAC&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false filibustered to death] by Southerners on the floor of the Senate" (All 22 southern Senators at the time were [http://historycms.house.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=40930 white Democrats]); and again in 1962 by Kennedy, who rejected him after white liberals -- Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas -- objected that Hastie, an African American, was [https://books.google.com/books?id=7UTPwJNHQG4C&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false too conservative] (As Warren put it, "He's not a liberal, and he'll be opposed to the measures we're interested in.") During World War II, Hastie had laid the groundwork for the 1947 integration of the US armed forces when he [http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/09/_1st_black_federal_judges_who_were_they.html resigned as aide to Secretary of War Henry Stimson] in protest of segregated training in the US Army Air Force for the Tuskeegee Airmen.</ref>

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Johnson ran "[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/revisiting-the-daisy-ad-revolution/ the most negative political ad in American history]," a campaign ad titled "Daisy," smearing Republican challenger [[Barry Goldwater]] as a warmonger who threatened nuclear devastation. Thus "[http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/lbjs-atomic-ad1964-daisy-girl/ the negative political ad was born], initiating the clever use of image and sound to paint an opponent in negative or scary terms."

Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide over Goldwater but, ironically, greatly expanded American involvement in [[Vietnam]] (see [[Vietnam War]]). In November 1965, during a meeting with his Joint Chiefs, after stating how they could mine the North Vietnamese ports as well as do massive aerial strikes on Hanoi to prevent Soviet or other Communist aid from going into the region, although Johnson seemingly acted receptive, he then turned around and started screaming various obscenities, including using the f-word more freely as an adjective than a Marine at boot camp, and told them he was disgusted with their naivety and made clear that he wasn't going to let "military idiots" drag him into World War III before bluntly dismissing them by telling them to "get the hell out of [Johnson's] office!"<ref>Cheers and Tears: A Marine's Story of Combat in Peace and War (2002).</ref> His popularity plunged as the death toll from the conflict in Vietnam steadily increased. In early 1968, faced with plummeting poll numbers and mounting public opposition to his foreign policy, Johnson announced that he would neither seek nor accept his party's nomination for the presidency in 1968. This decision may have been brought about by his surprisingly narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary over Eugene McCarthy, a liberal anti-war Democrat. It is widely thought that had he run, he would have been trounced in the primaries or in the subsequent general election—eventually won by Republican [[Richard M. Nixon]]. Another reason he decided to not pursue reelection may have also had to do with the then-recent reporting of the 1968 [[Tet Offensive]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] that [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|falsely implied]] that America was losing the Vietnam War (with Johnson allegedly stating to his aides during the broadcast that "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America"), coupled by a failed attempt to explain otherwise to the American public.<ref>http://www.iancfriedman.com/?p=383</ref>

==See Also==
[[USS Scorpion (SSN 589)]]
[[USS Pueblo]]

==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Caro, Robert A. ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (3 volumes as of 2006): ''The Path to Power'' (1982); ''Means of Ascent'' (1990); ''Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (2002). The most detailed biography, extends to 1960; generally hostile to LBJ; See Dallek and Woods for balanced biographies; [https://www.amazon.com/Path-Power-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0679729453/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-2 vol 1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [https://www.amazon.com/Means-Ascent-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/067973371X/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-3 vol 2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [https://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Lyndon-Johnson-Vintage/dp/0394720954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-1 vol 3 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908–1960'' (1991), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59394514 online edition vol 1]; ''Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961–1973'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65196503 online edition vol 2]; also: '' Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President'' (2004). A 400-page abridged version of his 2 volume scholarly biography, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103184871 online edition of short version].
* Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''Lyndon Johnson & the American Dream'' (1977). A character study.
* Schulman, Bruce J. ''Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism: A Brief Biography with Documents'' (1995)
* Woods, Randall. ''LBJ: Architect of American Ambition'' (2006). A highly detailed scholarly biography (1000 pages). [https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Architect-American-Randall-Woods/dp/0684834588/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189835998&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]

===Presidential years===
* Altschuler, Bruce E.; ''LBJ and the Polls'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37809550 online edition]
* Andrew, John A. ''Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society'' (1999) 224 pp. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1566631858/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Bernstein, Irving. ''Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson'' 1994.
* Bornet, Vaughn Davis. ''The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson''. 1983
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Parting-Waters-America-Years-1954-63/dp/0671687425/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722057&sr=1-31 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65'' (1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Pillar-Fire-America-Years-1963-65/dp/0684848090/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722178&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68'' (2007)
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 1: Foreign Policy, the Great Society and the White House.'' 1981; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 2: Vietnam, the Environment, and Science.'' 1987; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 3: LBJ at Home and Abroad''. 1994; essays by scholars [https://www.amazon.com/Johnson-Years-Three-Home-Abroad/dp/0700606556/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-5 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Firestone, Bernard J., and Robert C. Vogt, eds. ''Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Uses of Power.'' (1988); essays by scholars [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23324778 online edition]
* Graham, Hugh Davis. ''The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972'' (1990)
* Gould, Lewis L. ''Lady Bird Johnson and the Environment.'' 1988.
* Lichtenstein, Nelson, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Johnson Years''. 1976. short biographies of 400+ key politicians
* Mann, Robert. ''The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.'' 1996.
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jerome M. Mileur, eds. ''The Great Society And The High Tide Of Liberalism'' (2005) 490pp of essays by scholars; [https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1558494936/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Redford, Emmette S., and Marlan Blissett. ''Organizing the Executive Branch: The Johnson Presidency.'' 1981.
* Shesol, Jeff. ''Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Shaped a Decade'' 1997.
* White, Theodore H. ''The Making of the President, 1964'' 1965. [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zarefsky, David. ''President Johnson's War on Poverty'' 1986.

===Vietnam===
* Barrett, David Marshall. ''Advice and Dissent: An Organizational Analysis of the Evolution of Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam Advisory System, 1965–1968.'' (University of Notre Dame, 1990)
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam'' (1991)
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Casey, Francis Michael. ''The Vietnam Policy of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in Response to the Theory of the Protracted Conflict as Applied in the Politics of Indochina: A Case Study of Threat Perception and Assessment in the Crisis Management Process of a Pluralistic Society.'' (Claremont Graduate School, 1976)
* Cherwitz, Richard Arnold. ''The Rhetoric of the Gulf of Tonkin: A Study of the Crisis Speaking of President Lyndon B. Johnson.'' (University of Iowa, 1978)
* Goodnight, Lisa Jo. ''The Conservative Voice of a Liberal President: An Analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1993)
* Kaiser, David E. ''American tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the origins of the Vietnam War.'' (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000) ISBN 0-674-00225-3
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam, A History.'' (Penguin, 1991), balanced assessment
* Logevall, Fredrik Bengt Johan. ''Fear to Negotiate: Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1963–1965.'' (Yale University, 1993)
* Turner, Kathleen Jane. ''The Effect of Presidential-Press Interaction on Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam War Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1978)
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=53311933 online edition]
* Woods, Randall B. "The Politics of Idealism: Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights, and Vietnam," ''Diplomatic History'' (2007) 31 (1), 1–18. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/J.1467-7709.2007.00599.X online at Blackwell-Synergy]

==Primary sources==
* Barrett David M. ed. "Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Papers: A Documentary Collection" (1997). Documents from LBJ Library and other archives.
* Beschloss Michael R. ed. ''Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963–1964'' (1997). Transcribed recordings of LBJ's phone calls.
* Beschloss, Michael R. ed. ''Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson's Secret White House Tapes, 1964-1965'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Glory-Lyndon-Johnsons-1964-1965/dp/074322714X/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-7 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Califano Joseph A., Jr. ''The Triumph & Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson'' (1991). By a cabinet member.
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Gallup, George H. ed. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971, volume 3: 1959–1971'' (1972). Summary of poll data.
* Johnson Lyndon B. ''The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency, 1963–1969'' (1971). LBJ's memoirs.
* ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson'' (10 volumes, GPO, 1965–70). All speeches and official statements.
* Reedy, George ''Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir'' (1982), ISBN 0-8362-6610-2. A memoir by the press secretary.

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
* [https://librivox.org/author/11302 Works by Lyndon B. Johnson - text and free audio] - [[LibriVox]]

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Lyndon B.}}
[[Category:Texas]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Racism]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

USS Pueblo

2019-08-20T15:37:58Z

Snoopy2: See Also

The '''USS Pueblo''' (AGER-2, originally AKL-44), is a commissioned ship of the [[United States Navy]]. On January 23, 1968, while off Wonsan, [[North Korea]], the ''USS Pueblo'' was attacked by the North Korean [[navy|naval]] and [[air force]]s and seized.<ref>http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_02fall/lerner.htm</ref><ref>http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1869.html</ref> Eighty two surviving crew members were captured and held [[POW|prisoner]] for 11 months, one crew member was killed in the assault. Under inhumane conditions, after eleven months of captivity, ''Pueblo's'' crew was repatriated on December 23, 1968. The ship was retained by North Korea,<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-teen-returns-North-Korea-visit/ss/events/wl/081910jonathanlee/im:/100819/481/urn_publicid_ap_org8aa6932b663e4b1c9b91374714d6af1a/ U.S. teen poses with a North Korean in front of the USS Pueblo]</ref> despite it still being the property of the U.S. Navy.

The North Koreans contended that the ship had violated their territorial waters, a claim denied by the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/ager2.htm</ref>

==See Also==
[[USS Scorpion]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Warships|Pueblo, USS]]

Lyndon B. Johnson

2019-08-20T15:23:41Z

Snoopy2: see also

{{Officeholder
|name=Lyndon B. Johnson
|image=LBJ by Shoumatoff.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party|Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Lady Bird Johnson]]
|religion=[[Disciples of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
|vp=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
|preceded=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Richard Nixon]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963
|president=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|preceded=[[Richard Nixon]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Texas
|terms=January 3, 1949 – January 3, 1961
|preceded=W. Lee O'Daniel
|former=y
|succeeded=[[William Blakley]] (interim) 
[[John Tower]] (permanent)
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Texas
|district=10th
|terms=April 10, 1937 – January 3, 1949
|preceded=[[James P. Buchanan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Homer Thornberry]]
}}
}}
'''Lyndon Baines Johnson''' (1908–1973), often referred to as '''LBJ''', was the 36th [[President of the United States of America]] (1963–1969). After serving in the House and Senate since 1937, Johnson was elected Vice President in 1960, and in November 1963, he succeeded to the presidency following President [[John F. Kennedy]]'s assassination. President Kennedy disliked his Vice President Johnson so much that Kennedy ostracized him from social events, and Johnson was perhaps the most crooked, bullying politician ever to become president.<ref>[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm ''LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident Source: John Prados, The White House Tapes'']</ref>

In [[Texas]], Johnson stole his first election to the [[U.S. Senate]], as recounted by historians. As president in 1964, Johnson ordered the [[CIA]] to infiltrate and spy on his [[conservative]] opponent, [[Barry Goldwater]], which enabled Johnson to preempt Goldwater's initiatives with Johnson's own. Johnson also lied about the [[Gulf of Tonkin]] attack in order to boost Jonson's reelection chances in 1964.

Johnson began his career as a liberal [[New Deal]]er, later when he became a senator he initially aligned himself with the Southern Democrats, although by the time he ascended to Senate Leadership he espoused moderate politics in an attempt to bridge both wings of the fractious [[Democratic Party]]. However, as President, he seized the leadership of liberalism citing [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as his role model. Johnson moved the [[Democratic Party]] to the left, and pushed through Congress the [[Great Society]], comprising liberal economic policy including Medicare (free health care for the elderly), Medicaid (free health care for the poor), aid to education, and a major "War on Poverty". As part of his jobs program, he greatly escalated the American troop strength in [[Vietnam]] through [[conscription]], from 16,000 in 1963 to 23,000 by the end of 1964 and finally to 550,000 by early 1968. [[Unemployment]] consequently, remained in check.

Johnson won re-election in a landslide in 1964 over [[conservative]] leader [[Barry Goldwater]], and proceeded to push through a massive expansion of federal programs known as the "Welfare State." This included [[Medicare]], food stamps, and federal spending on education. Johnson also supported the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965, which passed over a Democratic Filibuster.

Johnson's popularity steadily declined after 1966 and his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his Democratic party primarily due to Johnson's mishandling (and micromanagement) of the [[Vietnam War]] (which also ironically involved the [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|intentionally false reporting]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] on the [[Tet Offensive]]). Johnson was humiliated by a primary challenge to his reelection from fellow [[Democrat]] [[Eugene McCarthy]] in early 1968 in [[New Hampshire]], and then LBJ withdrew as a candidate for reelection. His Vice President [[Hubert Humphrey]] lost in the general election due in part to Johnson's unpopularity.

==Early years==
Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored numerous small rural churches in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of [[Baylor University]] during the [[American Civil War]]. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson.

Johnson was born in Stonewall, Texas, in a small farmhouse in a poor farming area along the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and the former Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys. The nearby village of Johnson City, Texas, was named after a relative who came from Georgia. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his eleventh-grade class.<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/36_l_johnson/tguide/l_johnson_dk.html</ref> He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924.<ref>http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp</ref>

In 1926, Johnson enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers' College (now called Texas State University-San Marcos). He worked his way through school, participated in debate and campus politics, edited the school newspaper, and graduated in 1931. Biographer Robert Caro asserts he was known as "the biggest liar on campus." <ref>Caro, Robert A. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1982. p. xx</ref> The college years refined his remarkable skills of persuasion and political organization. One year Johnson taught mostly Mexican American children at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, Texas. When he returned to San Marcos in 1965, after having signed the [[Higher Education Act]], Johnson looked back:
:"''I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this Nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American''."<ref>see [http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm "Remarks at Southwest Texas State College Upon Signing the Higher Education Act of 1965"]</ref>

==Early political career==
After graduation, Johnson briefly taught public speaking at Genesee Community College and debate in a Houston high school, then entered politics. Johnson's father had served five terms in the Texas legislature and was a close friend to one of Texas's rising political figures, Congressman [[Sam Rayburn]]. In 1930, Johnson campaigned for Texas state Senator Welly Hopkins in his run for Congress. Hopkins recommended him to Congressman [[Richard M. Kleberg]], who appointed Johnson as Kleberg's legislative secretary. LBJ was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," a group of Congressional aides, where he cultivated Congressmen, newspapermen and lobbyists. Johnson's friends soon included aides to President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], as well as fellow Texans such as Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. He became a surrogate son to Sam Rayburn.

Johnson married Claudia Alta Taylor (already nicknamed "Lady Bird") of Karnack, Texas on November 17, 1934, after she had attended Georgetown University Law School for several months. They had two daughters, Lynda Bird Johnson, born in 1944, and Luci Baines Johnson, born in 1947. Johnson enjoyed giving people and animals his own LBJ initials; his daughters' given names are examples, as was his dog Little Beagle Johnson.

In 1935, he was appointed head of the Texas [[National Youth Administration]] (NYA), which enabled him to use the government to create educational and job opportunities for young people. He resigned two years later to run for Congress. Johnson was a notoriously tough boss throughout his career, often demanding long workdays and work on weekends; he worked as hard as any of them.<ref>Woods, (2006), p. 131</ref>

==House years==
Johnson resigned from his NYA job in 1937 to run successfully in a special election for a seat in the [[House of Representatives]] representing [[Austin, Texas|Austin]] and the surrounding Hill Country. He ran on a [[New Deal]] platform and was effectively aided by his wife, Lady Bird Johnson.

President Roosevelt found Johnson to be a welcome ally and conduit for information, particularly with regards to issues concerning internal politics in Texas (informally dubbed "Operation Texas") and the machinations of Vice President Garner and House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Johnson was immediately appointed to the powerful Naval Affairs Committee. He worked for rural electrification and other improvements for his district. Johnson steered the projects towards contractors which he personally knew, such as the Brown Brothers, Herman and George, who would finance much of Johnson's future career.<ref>Caro, (1982) is full of details.</ref> In 1941, he ran for the U.S. Senate (while not giving up his House seat) in a special election against the sitting governor, radio personality W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. Johnson was not expected to win against the popular governor, but he ran a strong race and was declared the winner in unofficial returns. He ultimately was defeated by controversial official returns in an election marked by massive fraud on the part of both campaigns.

==Senate years==

In 1948, Johnson won an election for [[U.S. Senate]] by stealing the election, according even to historians sympathetic to him. Johnson ran against former governor Coke Stevenson; neither candidate won a majority of the votes in the election, which under Texas law forced a runoff between Johnson and Stevenson. Johnson then claimed an 87-vote victory over Stevenson in the runoff, which was fraudulent.<ref>See eg Robert A Caro Master of the ''Senate Means of Assent''</ref> After joining the Senate, Johnson established relationships with several senior senators, including [[Richard Russell]]. Johnson was appointed to the powerful [[Armed Services Committee]] in 1950, and became chairman of the Preparedness Subcommittee which brought him into the public spotlight much like [[Harry Truman]] used the "Truman Committee" during the Second World War. He was named minority whip in 1951 under Democratic leader Bob McFarland, and he became the leader of the [[Democratic Party]] in the Senate in 1953. His first major policy, with the support of Russell, was to bypass the Seniority rule in committee assignments, which meant that Senators became reliant on his favor in order to obtain positions on important committees. This move, in combination with his strong personality gave him power of senators that had not been seen before (or since) in Senate History. He is often referred to as the "Master of the Senate". Surprisingly, after he became majority leader in 1955 he supported many of Eisenhower's proposals despite the partisan resistance of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. This allowed him to bask in the reflected glow of Eisenhower's immense popularity and gain a reputation for working across the aisle and getting things done.

Although publicly posing as a Civil Rights hero, in private Johnson was—like most southern Democrats of the 1960s—a racist: When his sometime chauffeur, Robert Parker, told LBJ he'd prefer to be called by his name rather than "boy," "nigger" or "chief," Johnson replied, "As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture."<ref>Robert Parker and Richard L. Rashke, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JKhpZMj8Z6wC Capitol Hill in Black and White]'' (Penguin Group, 1989), ISBN 0515101893, p. v.</ref>

In his capacity as Majority Leader of the Senate, Johnson joined with [[Strom Thurmond]] to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But when Senate Republicans re-introduced the bill, LBJ said, "I'm going to have to bring up the nigger bill again," according to LBJ's White House Special Counsel Harry McPherson.<ref>Michael L. Gillette, [https://web.archive.org/web/20050304042315/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/mcpherson/mcpher06.pdf Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI], 5/16/85, LBJ Library, 16 May 1985.</ref> "Let's face it. Our ass is in a crack. We're gonna have to let this nigger bill pass," he told Senator John Stennis (D-MS), according to a Pulitzer Prize winning<ref>[http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Biography-or-Autobiography Biography or Autobiography]. Past winners & finalists by category. The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved 2012-03-24.</ref> biography.<ref>Caro, Robert A. (2002). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=U87rzAqVhbwC The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3]''. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360.</ref> According to Bancroft Prize winning<ref>[http://library.columbia.edu/about/awards/bancroft/previous_awards.html The Bancroft Prizes: Previous Awards]. The Columbia University Libraries/Information Services</ref> biographer Robert Dallek, he asked Senator Sam Rayburn (D-TX), "Sam, why don't you all let this nigger bill pass?"<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350.</ref> According to former Harvard historian and Johnson staffer Doris Kearns Goodwin, LBJ explained his position to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) thus:
{{cquote|These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.<ref>Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1977). [https://books.google.com/books?id=HS9aAAAAYAAJ Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream]. New York: New American Library. p. 155. ISBN 0451140826</ref>}}

Johnson saw to it that once the bill reached the Senate judiciary committee it was weakened enough to ensure passage, the first passed since Reconstruction. Johnson then took credit. He was a master at balancing the powerful southern wing of the Democratic party with the liberal northern and eastern wing. He would employ very effective tactics of persuasion with senators; including intimidation, flattery, threats and promises. Johnson sought the Democratic nomination for president prior to the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 election]], but accepted the nomination for vice-president following Kennedy's nomination.

==Presidency==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]
{{see also|Great Society|Johnson administration}}
Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn into the [[President of the United States of America|Office of the President]] just hours after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The [[Oath of Office]] took place aboard [[Air Force One]] just prior to the flight to [[Washington DC]] from [[Dallas]]. It was administered by [[Sarah T. Hughes]] (one of the first justices to hear and write the decision for [[Roe v. Wade]] in favor of [[abortion]]).<ref>University of North Texas Libraries, Sarah T. Hughes Collection, http://www.library.unt.edu/archives/historical-manuscripts/historical-manuscripts-exhibits/hughes/</ref> Also, since no Bible could be found aboard Air Force One, Johnson recited the oath with his hand on a [[Roman Catholic]] [[missal]] which had been in Kennedy's desk.<ref>New York Times, "After a Time of Tragedy, a Beginning Toward the 'Great Society,'" January 1973. Online at https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-tragedy.html</ref> Largely because of the KGB's disinformation campaign shortly after the JFK assassination, Johnson was often believed by conspiracy theorists to have been the one who arranged for Kennedy's assassination to get into the presidency. However, declassified CIA documents in 2015 that dated back to the assassination revealed that Johnson learned from the CIA that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been getting visas for escape from the country via Cuba and the Soviet Union only three days after the assassination occurred, making this motive unlikely.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3237770/Declassified-CIA-memo-reveals-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-visited-embassies-Cuba-Soviet-Union-plot-escape-assassinating-John-F-Kennedy.html</ref>

As President, Johnson greatly expanded the federal government with his [[Great Society]] programs. He played a key role in helping the [[civil rights movement]] win legislative victories, pushing for the adoption of the [[Civil Rights Act]] (1964), which outlawed segregation, and the [[Voting Rights Act]] (1965), which guaranteed African-Americans' right to vote. President Johnson's support for civil rights was purely partisan. Discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with two southern governors on Air Force One, LBJ stated, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years,” according to Air Force One steward Robert M. MacMillan. “That was the reason he was pushing the bill," added MacMillan, an African American, "not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic Party. He was phony from the word go.”<ref>Interview with Robert M. MacMillan, March 23, 1993, cited in Ronald Kessler, ''[https://books.google.com/books/about/Inside_the_White_House.html?id=lJz-yIZNE2sC Inside the White House]'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 33, ISBN 0671879197.</ref>

Johnson also appointed [[NAACP]] lawyer [[Thurgood Marshall]] the first African American Supreme Court Justice. When a young White House attorney recommended Federal Judge William Henry Hastie—who had been Marshall's professor at Harvard Law School—as a more qualified African American candidate, LBJ rejected the light-skinned Hastie, explaining, "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Hastie had previously been considered for the Court by Eisenhower in 1956, who shelved the idea because Hastie's nomination would have been "[https://books.google.com/books?id=RAVl_KwcBuAC&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false filibustered to death] by Southerners on the floor of the Senate" (All 22 southern Senators at the time were [http://historycms.house.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=40930 white Democrats]); and again in 1962 by Kennedy, who rejected him after white liberals -- Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas -- objected that Hastie, an African American, was [https://books.google.com/books?id=7UTPwJNHQG4C&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false too conservative] (As Warren put it, "He's not a liberal, and he'll be opposed to the measures we're interested in.") During World War II, Hastie had laid the groundwork for the 1947 integration of the US armed forces when he [http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/09/_1st_black_federal_judges_who_were_they.html resigned as aide to Secretary of War Henry Stimson] in protest of segregated training in the US Army Air Force for the Tuskeegee Airmen.</ref>

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Johnson ran "[https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/revisiting-the-daisy-ad-revolution/ the most negative political ad in American history]," a campaign ad titled "Daisy," smearing Republican challenger [[Barry Goldwater]] as a warmonger who threatened nuclear devastation. Thus "[http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/lbjs-atomic-ad1964-daisy-girl/ the negative political ad was born], initiating the clever use of image and sound to paint an opponent in negative or scary terms."

Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide over Goldwater but, ironically, greatly expanded American involvement in [[Vietnam]] (see [[Vietnam War]]). In November 1965, during a meeting with his Joint Chiefs, after stating how they could mine the North Vietnamese ports as well as do massive aerial strikes on Hanoi to prevent Soviet or other Communist aid from going into the region, although Johnson seemingly acted receptive, he then turned around and started screaming various obscenities, including using the f-word more freely as an adjective than a Marine at boot camp, and told them he was disgusted with their naivety and made clear that he wasn't going to let "military idiots" drag him into World War III before bluntly dismissing them by telling them to "get the hell out of [Johnson's] office!"<ref>Cheers and Tears: A Marine's Story of Combat in Peace and War (2002).</ref> His popularity plunged as the death toll from the conflict in Vietnam steadily increased. In early 1968, faced with plummeting poll numbers and mounting public opposition to his foreign policy, Johnson announced that he would neither seek nor accept his party's nomination for the presidency in 1968. This decision may have been brought about by his surprisingly narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary over Eugene McCarthy, a liberal anti-war Democrat. It is widely thought that had he run, he would have been trounced in the primaries or in the subsequent general election—eventually won by Republican [[Richard M. Nixon]]. Another reason he decided to not pursue reelection may have also had to do with the then-recent reporting of the 1968 [[Tet Offensive]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] that [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|falsely implied]] that America was losing the Vietnam War (with Johnson allegedly stating to his aides during the broadcast that "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America"), coupled by a failed attempt to explain otherwise to the American public.<ref>http://www.iancfriedman.com/?p=383</ref>

==See Also==
[[USS Scorpion]]
[[USS Pueblo]]

==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Caro, Robert A. ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (3 volumes as of 2006): ''The Path to Power'' (1982); ''Means of Ascent'' (1990); ''Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (2002). The most detailed biography, extends to 1960; generally hostile to LBJ; See Dallek and Woods for balanced biographies; [https://www.amazon.com/Path-Power-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0679729453/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-2 vol 1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [https://www.amazon.com/Means-Ascent-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/067973371X/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-3 vol 2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [https://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Lyndon-Johnson-Vintage/dp/0394720954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-1 vol 3 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908–1960'' (1991), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59394514 online edition vol 1]; ''Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961–1973'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65196503 online edition vol 2]; also: '' Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President'' (2004). A 400-page abridged version of his 2 volume scholarly biography, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103184871 online edition of short version].
* Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''Lyndon Johnson & the American Dream'' (1977). A character study.
* Schulman, Bruce J. ''Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism: A Brief Biography with Documents'' (1995)
* Woods, Randall. ''LBJ: Architect of American Ambition'' (2006). A highly detailed scholarly biography (1000 pages). [https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Architect-American-Randall-Woods/dp/0684834588/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189835998&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]

===Presidential years===
* Altschuler, Bruce E.; ''LBJ and the Polls'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37809550 online edition]
* Andrew, John A. ''Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society'' (1999) 224 pp. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1566631858/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Bernstein, Irving. ''Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson'' 1994.
* Bornet, Vaughn Davis. ''The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson''. 1983
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Parting-Waters-America-Years-1954-63/dp/0671687425/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722057&sr=1-31 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65'' (1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Pillar-Fire-America-Years-1963-65/dp/0684848090/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722178&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68'' (2007)
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 1: Foreign Policy, the Great Society and the White House.'' 1981; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 2: Vietnam, the Environment, and Science.'' 1987; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 3: LBJ at Home and Abroad''. 1994; essays by scholars [https://www.amazon.com/Johnson-Years-Three-Home-Abroad/dp/0700606556/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-5 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Firestone, Bernard J., and Robert C. Vogt, eds. ''Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Uses of Power.'' (1988); essays by scholars [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23324778 online edition]
* Graham, Hugh Davis. ''The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972'' (1990)
* Gould, Lewis L. ''Lady Bird Johnson and the Environment.'' 1988.
* Lichtenstein, Nelson, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Johnson Years''. 1976. short biographies of 400+ key politicians
* Mann, Robert. ''The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.'' 1996.
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jerome M. Mileur, eds. ''The Great Society And The High Tide Of Liberalism'' (2005) 490pp of essays by scholars; [https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1558494936/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Redford, Emmette S., and Marlan Blissett. ''Organizing the Executive Branch: The Johnson Presidency.'' 1981.
* Shesol, Jeff. ''Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Shaped a Decade'' 1997.
* White, Theodore H. ''The Making of the President, 1964'' 1965. [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zarefsky, David. ''President Johnson's War on Poverty'' 1986.

===Vietnam===
* Barrett, David Marshall. ''Advice and Dissent: An Organizational Analysis of the Evolution of Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam Advisory System, 1965–1968.'' (University of Notre Dame, 1990)
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam'' (1991)
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Casey, Francis Michael. ''The Vietnam Policy of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in Response to the Theory of the Protracted Conflict as Applied in the Politics of Indochina: A Case Study of Threat Perception and Assessment in the Crisis Management Process of a Pluralistic Society.'' (Claremont Graduate School, 1976)
* Cherwitz, Richard Arnold. ''The Rhetoric of the Gulf of Tonkin: A Study of the Crisis Speaking of President Lyndon B. Johnson.'' (University of Iowa, 1978)
* Goodnight, Lisa Jo. ''The Conservative Voice of a Liberal President: An Analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1993)
* Kaiser, David E. ''American tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the origins of the Vietnam War.'' (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000) ISBN 0-674-00225-3
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam, A History.'' (Penguin, 1991), balanced assessment
* Logevall, Fredrik Bengt Johan. ''Fear to Negotiate: Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1963–1965.'' (Yale University, 1993)
* Turner, Kathleen Jane. ''The Effect of Presidential-Press Interaction on Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam War Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1978)
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=53311933 online edition]
* Woods, Randall B. "The Politics of Idealism: Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights, and Vietnam," ''Diplomatic History'' (2007) 31 (1), 1–18. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/J.1467-7709.2007.00599.X online at Blackwell-Synergy]

==Primary sources==
* Barrett David M. ed. "Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Papers: A Documentary Collection" (1997). Documents from LBJ Library and other archives.
* Beschloss Michael R. ed. ''Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963–1964'' (1997). Transcribed recordings of LBJ's phone calls.
* Beschloss, Michael R. ed. ''Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson's Secret White House Tapes, 1964-1965'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Glory-Lyndon-Johnsons-1964-1965/dp/074322714X/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-7 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Califano Joseph A., Jr. ''The Triumph & Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson'' (1991). By a cabinet member.
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Gallup, George H. ed. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971, volume 3: 1959–1971'' (1972). Summary of poll data.
* Johnson Lyndon B. ''The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency, 1963–1969'' (1971). LBJ's memoirs.
* ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson'' (10 volumes, GPO, 1965–70). All speeches and official statements.
* Reedy, George ''Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir'' (1982), ISBN 0-8362-6610-2. A memoir by the press secretary.

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
* [https://librivox.org/author/11302 Works by Lyndon B. Johnson - text and free audio] - [[LibriVox]]

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Lyndon B.}}
[[Category:Texas]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Racism]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

USS Scorpion (SSN 589)

2019-08-20T15:09:44Z

Snoopy2: All hands down : the true story of the Soviet attack on the USS Scorpion

{{Ship
| name=USS ''Scorpion'' (SSN 589)
| image=ScorpionSSN589.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:50 star flag.png|40px]] [[Image:50 star jack.png|30px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=United States Navy
| built=General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division Groton, Connecticut
| authorized=
| keellaid=20 August 1958
| launched=19 December 1959
| commissioned=29 July 1960
| decommissioned=
| status=Sunk south of Azores 21 May 1968
| type=Submarine (nuclear-powered) ''Skipjack''-class
| displ=3,057 t suface 3,500 t submerged
| length=251 ft 9 in
| beam=31 ft 7 in
| draft=
| speed=20+ knots
| test=
| armament=Six torpedo tubes
| crew=99 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
'''USS ''Scorpion''''' (SSN 589) was a nuclear-powered submarine of the ''Skipjack''-class, and the sixth vessel in the [[United States Navy]] to bear the name; she also bears the distinction of being the second such submarine lost in as yet unclear circumstances in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] while returning home from deployment in 1968.

==History==
''Scorpion'' (SSN-589) was laid down on 20 August 1958 by the Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corporation in Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 19 December 1959; sponsored by Mrs. Elizabeth S. Morrison; and commissioned on 29 July 1960, Commander Norman B. Bessac in command.

Assigned to Submarine Squadron 6, Division 62, ''Scorpion'' departed New London, Conn., on 24 August for a two-month deployment in European waters. During that period, she participated in exercises with units of the 6th Fleet and of other NATO ([[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]) navies. After returning to New England in late October, she trained along the eastern seaboard until May 1961, then crossed the Atlantic again for operations which took her into the summer. On 9 August, she returned to New London and, a month later, shifted to Norfolk, Va.

With Norfolk her home port for the remainder of her career, Scorpion specialized in the development of nuclear submarine warfare tactics. Varying her role from hunter to hunted, she participated in exercises which ranged along the Atlantic coast and in the Bermuda and Puerto Rican operating areas; then, from June 1963 to May 1964, she interrupted her operations for an overhaul at Charleston, [[South Carolina]]. Resuming duty off the eastern seaboard in late spring, she again interrupted that duty from 4 August to 8 October to make a transatlantic patrol. In the spring of 1965, she conducted a similar patrol in European waters.

During the late winter and early spring of 1966, and again in the fall, she was deployed for special operations. Following the completion of those assignments, her commanding officer received the [[Navy Commendation Medal]] for outstanding leadership, foresight, and professional skill. Other Scorpion officers and men were cited for meritorious achievement.

On 1 February 1967, ''Scorpion'' entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for another extended overhaul. In late October, she commenced refresher training and weapons system acceptance tests. Following type training out of Norfolk, she got underway on 15 February 1968 for a Mediterranean deployment. She operated with the 6th Fleet, into May, and then headed west for home. On 21 May, she indicated her position to be about 50 miles south of the [[Azores]]. Six days later, she was reported overdue at Norfolk.

A search was initiated, but, on 5 June, Scorpion and her crew were declared "presumed lost." Her name was struck from the Navy list on 30 June.

==Discovery of the wreck==
The search continued, however; and, at the end of October, the Navy's oceanographic research ship, ''Mizar'' (T-AGOR-11) located sections of ''Scorpion's'' hull in more than 10,000 feet of water about 400 miles southwest of the Azores. Subsequently, the Court of Inquiry was reconvened and other vessels, including the submersible ''Trieste'' were dispatched to the scene and collected a myriad of pictures and other data.

Although the cause of her loss is still not ascertainable, the most probable event was the inadvertent activation of the battery of a Mark 37 torpedo during a torpedo inspection. The torpedo, in a fully ready condition and without a propeller guard, then began a live "hot run" within the tube. Alternatively, the torpedo may have exploded in the tube owing to an uncontrollable fire in the torpedo room.

The explosion—recorded elsewhere as a very loud acoustic event—broke the boat into two major pieces, with the forward hull section, including the torpedo room and most of the operations compartment, creating one impact trench while the aft section, including the reactor compartment and engine room, created a second impact trench. The sail is detached and lies nearby in a large debris field.

Owing to the pressurized-water nuclear reactor in the engine room, deep ocean radiological monitoring operations were conducted in August and September 1986. The site had been previously monitored in 1968 and 1979 and none of the samples obtained showed any evidence of release of radioactivity.

==Bermuda Triangle connection==
Several authors have added the loss of the sub to the list of victims of the [[Bermuda Triangle]], despite the fact that the sub sank well outside the Triangle's traditional boundaries. One author (''Limbo of the Lost'') had even "stretched" the apex of the Triangle to cover the site of the sinking; he as well as the others who placed the sub within their books added the level of mystery the Triangle story required; indeed, the loss of the sub still has explanations with are to this date still unknown. But to include ''Scorpion'' as a victim of the paranormal that is the hallmark of the Bermuda Triangle tale is seen as a disservice to the families of the crew, as well as the Navy as a whole.

==Soviet victim?==
One issue that gained ground during the 1980s was the allegation that the ''Scorpion'' was sunk after being discovered by a Soviet flotilla, which the sub had been given a message to divert from her homeward course and shadow. Author Peter Earley postulated that in 1968 Naval communications were being read with ease, courtesy of a U.S. Navy warrant officer-turned-spy named John Walker. Although sinking by the Soviets was, and remains, unproven, Walker did serious damage to the Navy and his country. Top secret code books, code keys, and messages were stolen by him and passed along to the Soviets for nearly 20 years before being caught in 1985. One of new communications machines he gave information of in 1968 was onboard USS ''Pueblo'', which was seized by [[North Korea]] soon after Walker began his spying.
Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler interviewed no fewer than four retired Soviet naval officers who confirmed that they sank the USS Scorpion in revenge for the loss their submarine near Hawaii. One of them specified that a helicopter took off from one ship, fired the anti-submarine torpedo and landed on another ship so that no one could see the torpedo was gone. After the loss of the [[USS Pueblo]], the [[Lyndon Johnson]] administration chose to cover up this atrocity rather than acknowledge the loss of another ship.<ref>All hands down : the true story of the Soviet attack on the USS Scorpion / Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2008.</ref>

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s7/scorpion-vi.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Submarines]]

USS Scorpion (SSN 589)

2019-08-20T15:08:25Z

Snoopy2: All hands down : the true story of the Soviet attack on the USS Scorpion

{{Ship
| name=USS ''Scorpion'' (SSN 589)
| image=ScorpionSSN589.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:50 star flag.png|40px]] [[Image:50 star jack.png|30px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=United States Navy
| built=General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division Groton, Connecticut
| authorized=
| keellaid=20 August 1958
| launched=19 December 1959
| commissioned=29 July 1960
| decommissioned=
| status=Sunk south of Azores 21 May 1968
| type=Submarine (nuclear-powered) ''Skipjack''-class
| displ=3,057 t suface 3,500 t submerged
| length=251 ft 9 in
| beam=31 ft 7 in
| draft=
| speed=20+ knots
| test=
| armament=Six torpedo tubes
| crew=99 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
'''USS ''Scorpion''''' (SSN 589) was a nuclear-powered submarine of the ''Skipjack''-class, and the sixth vessel in the [[United States Navy]] to bear the name; she also bears the distinction of being the second such submarine lost in as yet unclear circumstances in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] while returning home from deployment in 1968.

==History==
''Scorpion'' (SSN-589) was laid down on 20 August 1958 by the Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corporation in Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 19 December 1959; sponsored by Mrs. Elizabeth S. Morrison; and commissioned on 29 July 1960, Commander Norman B. Bessac in command.

Assigned to Submarine Squadron 6, Division 62, ''Scorpion'' departed New London, Conn., on 24 August for a two-month deployment in European waters. During that period, she participated in exercises with units of the 6th Fleet and of other NATO ([[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]) navies. After returning to New England in late October, she trained along the eastern seaboard until May 1961, then crossed the Atlantic again for operations which took her into the summer. On 9 August, she returned to New London and, a month later, shifted to Norfolk, Va.

With Norfolk her home port for the remainder of her career, Scorpion specialized in the development of nuclear submarine warfare tactics. Varying her role from hunter to hunted, she participated in exercises which ranged along the Atlantic coast and in the Bermuda and Puerto Rican operating areas; then, from June 1963 to May 1964, she interrupted her operations for an overhaul at Charleston, [[South Carolina]]. Resuming duty off the eastern seaboard in late spring, she again interrupted that duty from 4 August to 8 October to make a transatlantic patrol. In the spring of 1965, she conducted a similar patrol in European waters.

During the late winter and early spring of 1966, and again in the fall, she was deployed for special operations. Following the completion of those assignments, her commanding officer received the [[Navy Commendation Medal]] for outstanding leadership, foresight, and professional skill. Other Scorpion officers and men were cited for meritorious achievement.

On 1 February 1967, ''Scorpion'' entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for another extended overhaul. In late October, she commenced refresher training and weapons system acceptance tests. Following type training out of Norfolk, she got underway on 15 February 1968 for a Mediterranean deployment. She operated with the 6th Fleet, into May, and then headed west for home. On 21 May, she indicated her position to be about 50 miles south of the [[Azores]]. Six days later, she was reported overdue at Norfolk.

A search was initiated, but, on 5 June, Scorpion and her crew were declared "presumed lost." Her name was struck from the Navy list on 30 June.

==Discovery of the wreck==
The search continued, however; and, at the end of October, the Navy's oceanographic research ship, ''Mizar'' (T-AGOR-11) located sections of ''Scorpion's'' hull in more than 10,000 feet of water about 400 miles southwest of the Azores. Subsequently, the Court of Inquiry was reconvened and other vessels, including the submersible ''Trieste'' were dispatched to the scene and collected a myriad of pictures and other data.

Although the cause of her loss is still not ascertainable, the most probable event was the inadvertent activation of the battery of a Mark 37 torpedo during a torpedo inspection. The torpedo, in a fully ready condition and without a propeller guard, then began a live "hot run" within the tube. Alternatively, the torpedo may have exploded in the tube owing to an uncontrollable fire in the torpedo room.

The explosion—recorded elsewhere as a very loud acoustic event—broke the boat into two major pieces, with the forward hull section, including the torpedo room and most of the operations compartment, creating one impact trench while the aft section, including the reactor compartment and engine room, created a second impact trench. The sail is detached and lies nearby in a large debris field.

Owing to the pressurized-water nuclear reactor in the engine room, deep ocean radiological monitoring operations were conducted in August and September 1986. The site had been previously monitored in 1968 and 1979 and none of the samples obtained showed any evidence of release of radioactivity.

==Bermuda Triangle connection==
Several authors have added the loss of the sub to the list of victims of the [[Bermuda Triangle]], despite the fact that the sub sank well outside the Triangle's traditional boundaries. One author (''Limbo of the Lost'') had even "stretched" the apex of the Triangle to cover the site of the sinking; he as well as the others who placed the sub within their books added the level of mystery the Triangle story required; indeed, the loss of the sub still has explanations with are to this date still unknown. But to include ''Scorpion'' as a victim of the paranormal that is the hallmark of the Bermuda Triangle tale is seen as a disservice to the families of the crew, as well as the Navy as a whole.

==Soviet victim?==
One issue that gained ground during the 1980s was the allegation that the ''Scorpion'' was sunk after being discovered by a Soviet flotilla, which the sub had been given a message to divert from her homeward course and shadow. Author Peter Earley postulated that in 1968 Naval communications were being read with ease, courtesy of a U.S. Navy warrant officer-turned-spy named John Walker. Although sinking by the Soviets was, and remains, unproven, Walker did serious damage to the Navy and his country. Top secret code books, code keys, and messages were stolen by him and passed along to the Soviets for nearly 20 years before being caught in 1985. One of new communications machines he gave information of in 1968 was onboard USS ''Pueblo'', which was seized by [[North Korea]] soon after Walker began his spying.
Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler interviewed no fewer than four retired Soviet naval officers who confirmed that they sank the USS Scorpion in revenge for the loss their submarine near Hawaii. One of them specified that a helicopter took off from one ship, fired the anti-submarine torpedo and landed on another ship so that no one could see the torpedo was gone. After the loss of the Pueblo, the [[Lyndon Johnson]] administration chose to cover up this atrocity rather than acknowledge the loss of another ship.<ref>All hands down : the true story of the Soviet attack on the USS Scorpion / Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2008.</ref>

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s7/scorpion-vi.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Submarines]]

New Chronology

2019-08-17T16:31:59Z

Snoopy2: /* Recent Developments */

{{See also|Egyptian chronology}}
The '''New Chronology''' is a theory first proposed in 1978 at the Glasgow Conference of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies by a group of scholars and historians, principally those involved with the study of ancient [[Egypt]]. One of them, David Rohl, went on to refine the New Chronology, publishing a re-definition of Egyptian chronology as related to the [[Bible]] in his work ''A Test of Time''.

==Pillars of Egyptian Dating==
The foundations of Egyptian chronology as currently accepted by a majority of scholars is based upon the following four arguments:
*The sacking of [[Thebes]] in 664 B.C. by [[Ashurbanipal]], king of [[Assyria]], in response to a revolt led by [[Pharaoh Taharka]]. Written records left behind by [[Babylonian]], Assyrian, and Egyptian sources make this date absolute.
*The claim of the Eber Payrus of a fixed date of either 1542 B.C. or 1517 B.C. for the rising of the star [[Sirius]] in the ninth year of [[Amenhotep I]].
*The identification of Shoshenq I of the [[22nd Egyptian Dynasty|22nd Dynasty]] as the Biblical [[Shishak]], recorded in 1 Kings 14:25,26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 as the conqueror of [[Jerusalem]] when [[Rehoboam]] was king of Judah.
*And the identification of 19th Dynasty pharaoh [[Ramesses II]] as the either the pharaoh of the oppression, or as the pharaoh of [[the Exodus]].

Of these, the one date beyond dispute is the 664 B.C. sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal. As to the remainder, the identity of Shoshenq I as Shishak was based solely on a reading of the text of the Bubasite Portal at the Temple of Karnak near Thebes by [[Jean-François Champollion]] on his only trip to Egypt in the mid-1800s after he successfully deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphic language. On the Portal is a list of cities Shoshenq I had conquered in his campaign, and the 29th city Champollion read it as ''y-w-d-h-m-r-k,'' surmising that it meant “Judah Kingdom” (Hebrew ''Yhuda Malkhut'': יְהוּדָה מַלְכוּת). But it is not the word “Jerusalem,” which is not only not where it should be on the portal, it in fact it is not there at all. A highly important city such as Jerusalem, the capitol of a nation, should have merited mention in Shoshenq's campaign. Shishak, Rohl contends, should be identified with Ramesses II, making another pharaoh, Dudimose I, the pharaoh of the Exodus instead.

Rohl also contends the Ebers [[Papyrus]] is mis-read, insisting that it be understood as evidence for a reformation of the Egyptian calendar.

Working with the 664 B.C. date the early scholars counted back regnal years to set remaining dates, sometimes stretching pharaonic rules to fill in gaps. The problem in the setting of the conventional chronology arose when researchers searched for evidence they expected to find regarding the Biblical accounts; searching in what appeared to be the logical sites in the time periods in question (Late [[Bronze Age]] to [[Iron Age]] IIC) they found little to nothing, thus relegating a large part of the Biblical story, from the Creation of [[Genesis]] to major portion of the books of Kings and Chronicles to mythology. The age of the early kings of [[Israel]] was determined to have taken place, not in splendor, but in relative poverty, with no evidence of the major building works built by [[Solomon]]. The restructuring of Egyptian chronology according to the New Chronology indicates that the early Victorian [[archaeologist]]s merely made a series of wrong assumptions and mistakes in their eagerness to document Egypt.

===Dating Ramesses II===
Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty was known for his extensive building projects, including the site in the southern [[Nile]] delta region called the city of Raamses ([[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 1:8-11), as well as being called the pharaoh of the Exodus, based on the text of Exodus 1:8-11 which tells of a new pharaoh "who knew not Joseph" forcing the Hebrews to build the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. In order for this identification to stand, the time frame of the Judges must be reduced by 200 years. Overlooked by scholars are:
*Judges 11:26, which has Jephthah stating that the timespan from the first settlement in the Levant during the conquest of the Promised Land to his own time is 300 years.
*I Kings 6:1, which is an explicit statement that the time from the Exodus to the commencement of the building of Temple under Solomon in 966 BC is 480 years, agreeing with the date in Judges.

According to the conventional chronology Ramesses reigned in the 13th century B.C. (1279-1213 B.C.), yet the above dates indicate a date of 1447-1450 B.C. The use of "Ramesses" as a place name older than the pharaoh is further attested by Genesis 47:11, which states that Joseph and his brethren settled in the region of Ramesses.

Shoshenq I, as previously said, left an inscription of his conquests in the area of northern Israel in which it was claimed by Champollion that Jerusalem was among them. The only inscription from Egyptian sources directly identified as mentioning a conquest of Jerusalem is on the north tower of the pylon of the first court at the Ramesseum near Karnak, which was built by Ramesses II: ”The town in which the king plundered in Year 8 – Shalem”. The name “Jerusalem” was a later word made up of “yeru”, meaning “foundation” or “city” (possibly bestowed by the patriarch Abraham as “yireh” for Mt. Moriah) and “Shalem”, either an early local deity from pagan times or a byname for [[Melchizidek]], hence “city of Shalem” (Hebrew: ''Yerushaláyim'' יְרוּשָׁלַיִם).

In recent developments Peter James and Peter van der Veen place Shoshenq I's campaign in the latter 9'th century BC.
[https://www.academia.edu/13445166/When_did_Shoshenq_I_Campaign_in_Palestine_with_Peter_James_in_P._James_and_P._van_der_Veen_eds._Solomon_and_Shishak_BAR_International_Series_2732_Archaeopress_Oxford_2015]

*Rohl also argued that a nickname found for Ramesses II (and also used for Ramesses III), read as “se-se” from the hieroglyphic, may have been corrupted by the Hebrews with an added “K” sound at the end to signify contempt, becoming “se-sek.” In Hebrew it would have been written as שישק “sysq”, or “sha-shek”, which in Hebrew means "one who crushes".

The weakening of Israel and Judah at the time of Shishak's invasion, assuming he was indeed Ramesses II, would fit well with the inscription on the Mereneptah Stele by that later pharaoh (and Ramesses’ successor), which stated “Israel is desolate; his seed is no more.”

Archaeological problems resulted quickly when research was done in Shoshenq's time, known as the Third Intermediate Period, or TIP. What was found strongly indicate that the entire length of the TIP was artificially lengthened by some 200 years as a result of the piecing together of the chronology in the conventional manner. When corrected according to the New Chronology, several of the pharaohs were shown to have ruled at the same time.

==Joseph==
In the book of Genesis, Joseph, the son of Jacob, was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. In Egypt, he was known for winning his freedom by correctly pointing out the coming of seven years of plentiful crops, seven years of famine, and what should be done about it. In the New Chronology, his life comes out of the shadows of myth into the 12th Dynasty reign of Pharaoh Amenemhat III.

In the millennia before the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the annual flooding of the Nile River brought with it silt from the mountains of central Africa, to be deposited on either side of the Nile and in the Nile Delta region. This silt fertilized the area, allowing for crops to be grown. In ancient Egypt records were kept in various cities and temples recording the annual floods and the amount of crops harvested. The evidence for seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine in this pharaoh's reign was documented by Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius of Germany, who worked on the Nile at the Second Cataract where stood the ancient fortresses of Semma and Kumma. There he found written records of the Nile floods during Amenemhat's reign, where the average height recorded was some eleven to twelve meters above normal flood stage, which meant a good harvest.

But by the twelfth year of his rule, however, the recorded floods were at 17 meters, increasing the silt amount; this resulted in a dramatic increase in the crop yield, which continued for over seven years. This was followed by documentation recording the increase of flood waters to an average of twenty-one meters for another seven years, increasing the amount of water in the Delta, and preventing the planting of crops until the waters receded, which by the time that happened it would have been too late in the year to do so. Since a very-low crop yield would have inevitably been followed by famine, the effects would have been devastating all over the Levant, as Nile Delta crops were exported to that location.

Prior to the famine, Amenemhat was a mediocre ruler, having to deal with a number of local chieftans who were in actual control of large parts of Egypt. Many of the tombs which date in the period prior to Amenemhat show signs of the wealth used to construct them; one, that of Khnumhotep, has a painted scene showing a caravan from Midian, similar to the traders who had bought Joseph from his brothers in Genesis 37. However, during Amenemhat's reign, the elaborate tombs ceased to exist. Genesis 47 records the wealthy being forced to sell their possessions, their land, even their lives to Pharaoh in exchange for grain to survive the famine, which made Amenemhat one of Egypt's most powerful pharaohs.

===Jacob and Joseph's homes===
Excavations at Tell ed-Daba revealed a small village in stratum G/4 dating to the time when Jacob settled in Goshen. Research into the archaeological and human remains indicate
*the population of males were of Asiatic stock, from the Palestine or Syrian areas;
*the females were ethnic Egyptian, indicating intermarriage.
Also found was a structure of Syrian design which revealed numerous artifacts, again of Syrian design. The modest proportions of the building suggest that someone of importance had once lived there.

The remains of this building were found underneath the foundations of a much larger structure which was done in the Egyptian style, built for a very important man, along with the remains of a small, pyramidal tomb which was found to be completely empty, including the body, despite evidence of a robber's opening. The one remaining artifact found was the head and shoulders of a cult statue, apparently of the occupant of the tomb, in which the face had been hacked off and damage done to the top of the head in a fashion similar to someone trying to destroy it deliberately. With the New Chronology in mind, the only candidates for the occupants of both houses are Jacob and Joseph, who's cult statue was destroyed and house ruined by the Egyptians to vent their anger when the Hebrews departed Egypt and a life of bondage under Moses.

==Moses==
:''When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses...'' (Exodus 2:10)
:''Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it. She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. "This is one of the Hebrew babies," she said.'' (Exodus 2:5, 6)

According to advocates of the late-date theory of the Exodus, Moses left Egypt with the Hebrews about 1291 B.C. while Ramesses II sat on the throne; early-date theorists state 1441 B.C. under Amenhotep II. Despite their sojourn in Egypt for several centuries and a minimum population of 600,000, little to no evidence has been found in the archaeological or written records during the dates in question. The New Chronology attempts to correct this discrepancy.

Eusebius, an early Christian historian, quoted a book titled ''Peri Ioudaion'' by the 3rd century B.C. Jewish historian Artapanus, who had access to the written records in the Egyptian temples and the Library of Alexandria. Artapanus wrote that a pharaoh named Palmanothes had persecuted the Hebrews; during this time his daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child which she named Mousos, who grew up to be an administrator and military leader during the rule of her husband, Khenephres. Mousos' popularity had grown with the conquest of Ethiopia, causing Mousos to flee from Khenephres' jealous wrath, eventually settling in Arabia. In the corrected dating of the New Chronology, the pharaoh in question was the powerful Sobekhotep IV, who took the coronation name of ''Khaneferre'' when he inherited the throne. Both the Greek word ''Khenephres'' and the Egyptian ''Khaneferre'' mean "beautiful appearing of Re", and Sobekhotep IV was the only known pharaoh to bear this name.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing in his ''Antiquities of the Jews'', also mentioned the Ethiopian (Kush) campaign under Moses, who invaded that country by way of the Nile Valley, going south well past the Third Cataract. A stela in the British Museum dedicated to Sobekhotep IV confirms this invasion; indeed, it is the only record of a 13th Dynasty pharaoh undertaking such an operation. A statue of Sobekhotep IV was also found at Kerma deep inside Kush near the ruins of an ancient Egyptian building which may have been built to secure Egyptian interests after the conquest.

===Evidence at Avaris===
The region in the southeastern Nile Delta region was known as Goshen in Biblical times, and excavations have been ongoing at the site of Tell ed-Daba, a middle-Bronze Age settlement which was called the biblical city of Raamses or Pi-Ramesse, the city of the 19th Dynasty pharaoh Ramesses II (Exodus 1:11). Although Pi-Ramesse was built by Ramesses himself, archaeologists have confirmed the existence of an older city below which was called Avaris. The finds included:
*Confirmation that the people who lived there were Semitic in origin.
*The majority of pottery finds were Levantine (Land of Canaan) in source.
*The remains of a large number of sheep were found, suggesting shepherding.
*Despite a normal death rate of 20-30% during this time period for children 18 months or younger, some 65% of total burials were of these children. Exodus 1:22 records the killing of all male children by the Egyptians.
*A higher-than-normal number of women were also buried, suggesting that they were killed when protecting their children.

A papyrus scroll (Brooklyn 35:1446) acquired by Charles Wilbur in the 19th Century and now in the Brooklyn Museum dates to the 13th Dynasty under Pharaoh Sobekhotep III, who ruled before Moses. Essentially it is a decree from the pharaoh authorizing the transfer of slaves; of the 95 slaves mentioned by name, approximately 46 of them have their original Semitic names in addition to their Egyptian names each were assigned, something the Bible records as a common practice (Genesis 41:45).

Excavations at Avaris also revealed in stratum G/1 the shallow burial pits of people placed there in a haphazard manner, i.e. thrown in, and coinciding with the simultaneous abandonment of the city by the people en-masse. This fits extremely well with the events of the Tenth Plague, in which a large number of Egyptian males were killed (Exodus 12:29-30), and the subsequent departure from Goshen of the Hebrew slaves. Avaris was then completely resettled, the archaeological record reveals, by a people Asiatic in origin, who plundered Egyptian tombs for relics in their own, and who practiced human sacrifice as shown by the large number of female ritual burials. To ensure this scenario, we have to expect that:
*Egypt would be severely weakened economically by a large-scale departure of its work force, i.e. the slaves;
*Egypt had suffered psychologically from the loss of its first-born male children;
*Egypt would be severely, perhaps gravely, weakened by the loss of a significant number of men in its standing army, which the Bible describes as having taken place at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:28).

Josephus, quoting Manetho, described what happened:
:''Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.''

According to the New Chronology, the Exodus took place 1447 B.C. under Pharaoh Dudimose I, who was the ‘’Tutimaos’’ of Manetho. The 13th Dynasty ended with him, as he was unable to stop the onslaught of the Hyksos invaders, an Asiatic-Semitic people who took advantage of a weakened Egypt.

{| border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="1000" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="3"|
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: brown no-repeat scroll top left;"|Second Intermediate Period
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Thirteenth Dynasty 1802-1649 B.C. (conventional chronology) or 1632-1446 B.C. (New chronology)
|-
! width="200" | Pharaoh
! width="400" | Details
! width="120" | Conventional Chronology dates
! width="120" | New Chronology dates
! width="120" | New Chronology details
|-
| Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep (or Wegaf)
| Founder of the 13th Dynasty.
| 1803–1799
| 1632
| -
|-
| Amenemhat Senebef (Sekhemkare)
| Reigned 3 years
| 1798—1795
| 1630
| -
|-
| Amenemhat V
| —
| 1795–1792
| 1619
| No king from 1625-1619
|-
| Sehetepre
| —
| ? –1790
| 1616
| -
|-
| Iufni
| —
| ?
| 1611
| -
|-
| Seankhibre
| —
| ?
| 1606
| -
|-
| Semenkare
| —
| ?
| 1601
| -
|-
| Sehetepre
| —
| ?
| 1596
| -
|-
| Sewadjkare
| —
| ?
| 1591
| -
|-
| Nedjemibre
| Reigned 7 months
| ?
| 1586
| -
|-
| Sobekhotep I
| —
| ?
| 1581
| -
|-
| Renseneb
| 4 months
| c. 1775
| 1579
| -
|-
| Awybre Hor I
| —
| c. 1775(?)
| 1578
| -
|-
| [[Sedjefakare]]
| Became well known through the writings on many documents and stele.
| c. 5 to 7 yrs.
| 1573
| -
|-
| Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep II
| —
| c. 1767
| 1568
| -
|-
| Khendjer
| Reigned 4 yrs, 3 months, possibly longer.
| c. 1765
| 1563
| -
|-
| Imyremeshaw (Mermesha)
| —
| ?
| 1558
| -
|-
| Antef V (Inyotef)
| —
| ?
| 1553
| -
|-
| (...)set
| fragmented name
| ?
| 1548
| -
|-
| Sobekhotep III
| Reigned 4 years, 2 months
| c. 1755
| 1543
| -
|-
| Khasekhemre Neferhotep I
| Reigned 11 years
| 1751–1740
| 1540-1530
| Pharaoh of the oppression
|-
| Sihathor
| —
| ?
| 1530-1529
| Reigned three months
|-
| Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV
| Reigned 10–11 years; Called ''Khenephres'' by Artapanus, and ''Nepherkheres'' by Manetho
| 1740–1730
| 1529-1510 (?)
| '''MOSES''' born in his third regnal year
|-
| Khahotepre Sobekhotep V
| —
| c. 1730
| 1510-1506
| -
|-
| Wahibre Ibiau (Iayib)
| Reigned 10 years, 8 months
| c. 1725–1714
| 1506-1496
| -
|-
| Merneferre Ai (Ay)
| Reigned 23 years, 8 months
| c. 1714–1691
| 1496-1473
| -
|-
| Senkhre-ensewadjtu
| —
| ?
| 1473
| -
|-
| Mersekhemre Ined
| —
| ?
| 1467
| -
|-
| Sewadjkare Hori
| —
| ?
| 1464
| -
|-
| [[Dudimose I]]
| Position uncertain in conventional chronology; called ''Tutimaios'' by Manetho
| c. 1654
| 1448
| '''EXODUS''' in 1447; Egypt falls to the '''HYKSOS''' 1446
|-
|}
==Joshua==
After Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt they had wandered the wilderness of Sinai for 40 years until the conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua took place. The conventional chronology had this event taking place during the Early Iron Age IA in the 12th century B.C. Under the New Chronology this takes place in the Middle Bronze Age IIB, where an abundance of supportive evidence is found.

Dame Kathleen Kenyon of the London Institute of Archaeology excavated the city of Jericho, the first major conquest by Joshua, in the 1950s, finding a Middle Bronze Age ingeniously defended by means of a wall 12 feet thick on a slope which was plastered smooth, preventing the enemy from gaining a foothold should they get past a deep ditch which was just outside the walls. The ditch itself was filled with bricks from the city walls, indicating the walls were pulled down. However, she could not connect this evidence with Joshua, as she was using the conventional chronology.

Placing it within the time frame of the New Chronology confirms Joshua's actions. The remains of the city wall's bricks within the ditch would have allowed an army to penetrate rapidly into the city (Joshua 6). Further evidence found were many large jars filled with carbonized grain as well as other supplies and good, indicating the city had fallen quickly. These supplies were also burned; the evidence of fire destroying every part of Jericho is overwhelming, as is recorded in Joshua 6:24; in places the layer of ash was more than three feet thick. The city was not resettled for well over 500 years, when in 850 B.C. King Ahab ordered a rebuilding to take place, which was confirmed in the archaeological record as taking place during the Late Bronze Age.

Other findings confirming Joshua's actions included:
*The cities of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, Debir, Arad, and Hebron, written in the Biblical record as having been conquered by Joshua and put to the torch, were found with evidence of severe fire damage.
*Joshua 15:14 and Judges 1:10 record mention of King Sheshai of Hebron, who was defeated by Joshua. Numerous scarabs found in various sites in Palestine record this man.
*The name of Jabin, king of Hazor, was found on a tablet in the ruins of that city in 1992, the same Jabin who was defeated according to Joshua 11:1, 10.

==The Amarna Tablets==
In 1887, clay tablets were discovered by a fellaheen peasant woman at a site known as Tell el-Amarna in central Egypt. The 380 tablets were letters written to Amenhotep IV from the foreign rulers of city-states, as well as correspondence from the more powerful kingdoms to the north and east, such as Assyria and Babylon. The tablets were written in the cuneiform script of the Akkadian language.

The first name of interest to Biblical scholars in the Amarna Tablets is “Labayu”, the “Lion Man”, who held sway over central Palestine and was active in fighting against the Philistines. A hypocoristic, and not a proper name, “Labayu” has been translated as “the Great Lion of N”, the “N” suggesting a god's name. Here in the Amarna Tablets, transposing them from the 13th century B.C. of the conventional chronology to the 10th century B.C. the career of Labayu is a match for the Biblical record of the first king of the Israelites, Saul.

Labayu also warned Pharaoh to keep out of his internal affairs. In letter EA 252 Labayu writes:
:''“I was denigrated' in front of the king, my lord. Further, an ant, when it is squashed, doesn't revolt perhaps and bite the hand of the man who squashes it?” ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20030602120148/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/labaya.htm]

In Amarna letter EA 244 Labayu assaults Meggido:
:''”May the king know that since the archers have gone back, Labayu carries out acts of hostility against me, and that we cannot shear the wool, and that we cannot pass through the gate in the presence of Labayu, since he knows that you have not given (me) archers; and now he intends to take Meggido, but the king will protect his city so that Labayu does not seize her. In truth, the city is destroyed by death as a result of pestilence and disease. Grant the king one hundred garrison troops to guard the city, lest Labayu take it. Certainly, Labayu has no another intentions. He tries to destroy Meggido.”'' [http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/a-biridiya.htm]

Saul and his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malkishua were killed in battle with the Philistines near Mt. Gilboa in the Jezreel Valley, not too far from Meggido. The event is recorded in 1 Samuel 31. In EA 245, a ruler of a city-state, Addu-qarrad of Gitti-padalla, wrote to pharaoh ''"Why did you give into the hand of the king your lord Gitti-padalla, a city that Lab'aya our father had taken?" Thus the two sons of Lab'aya said to me: "Make war against the men of Qina, because they killed our father!”'' In the Bible, Qina was called En-Ganim.

EA 252, the letter from Labayu warning pharaoh, was studied extensively in the early 1940s by William Albright, the American archaeologist. He determined that the writer of the tablet knew little of the Akkadian language, which was the common correspondence between countries in that time period; intead the language was first written in Hebrew, then translated idiomatically into Akkadian. Essentially, the letter was from an untutored or uneducated man from humble beginnings who grew into a powerful ruler, which was exactly Saul.

In Psalm 57 Saul's bodyguards are called ''lebaim'', a Hebrew word meaning ''lions''. David, as he is hiding from Saul's men in the cave of En-Gedi (I Samuel 24), he is writing:
:''"I am in the midst of lions (Hebrew 'lebaim'); I lie among ravenous beasts - men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords."'' (Psalm 57:4)
EA 289 records the disruption of the area under Saul, but mentioning the Habiru:
:''"Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving the land of Shechem to the Habiru?"''

The ''Habiru'', thought by scholars to be stateless wanderers, and later by Biblical scholars as the Hebrews themselves, now become David's Hebrews who carried out mercenary assaults upon the Philistines.
*In 1 Samuel 13:3-5, Jonathan smashed the Philistine pillar at Gibeah. This event was also mentioned by Labayu in EA 252.
*In 1 Samuel 20:30-31, Saul reprimands his son Jonathan for consorting with David; in EA 254, Labayu does the same.
Amenhotep IV's inaction in the matter of Labayu is easily explained. He became a pacifist, a monotheistic revolutionary who turned Egypt's religious structure upside-down with his insistence that they worship one god, the sun (Aten); he changed his name to [[Akhetaten]] as a result. By the time the powerful military commander [[Horemheb]] took control as pharaoh, the conquest of the Promised Land under David was complete. When Solomon sat on the throne, he was powerful enough to have an Egyptian princess as his wife and marriage alliance.

==See also==
*[[Date of the Exodus]]

==Recent Developments==
Recent developments for numbers of New Chronology advocates start quite a while back with a book by Peter James in collaboration with I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot & John Frankish. More than a hundred reviews praised or damned the authors.<ref>Centuries of Darkness.[https://www.centuries.co.uk/reviews.htm]</ref> They identified archeological Dark Ages in the lands surrounding Egypt: the Levant, Aegean, Nubia, and elsewhere. As archaeological dating of these lands is derived from Egyptian chronology, any wrong assumptions there result in the pervasive Dark Ages existing in these surrounding lands (and the minimalist perspective on biblical history). They correlate the biblical [[Shishak]] as Ramesses III (in distinction from Rohl's Ramesses II, the Orthodox Chronology's Sheshonk I, or Velikovsky's Thutmoses III).

The most outstanding result of their considerable subsequent work occurred in publishing their 2015 book that reflects each side of the ongoing controversy (see References). Prominent archeologists Israel Finklestein and Silberman became, perhaps, unwilling allies when they revised downward the Levant archaeological dating starting with the Late Bronze Age IIB (from the Orthodox Chronology) through the Iron Age. Though Finklestein knows that biblical minimalists use his revisions, he hasn't affirmed or denied minimalism. In contrast, the New Chronology revisions give greater historical credence to the Hebrew narratives. James reviewed the book from an archeological and historical perspective. An important review of this book, by Assyriologist Prof. Ronald Wallenfels, has appeared in the Journal of the Ancient Oriental Society (issue 139.2, pp. 487-500). Entitled “Shishak and Shoshenq: A Disambiguation”, it provides many positive and constructive comments<ref>"Shishak and Shoshenq: A Disambiguation" Ronald Wallenfels, Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.2 (2019)[https://www.academia.edu/40041219/Shishak_and_Shoshenq_A_Disambiguation]</ref>.

==References==
{{Reflist}}
*Rohl, David M. ''Pharaohs and Kings'', Crown Publishers, New York, NY (1995), originally published in Great Britain as ''A Test of Time'', Century LTD, London.
*Albright, William F. ''The Old Testament and Modern Study'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, England (1951).
*Breasted, James Henry. ''Ancient Records of Egypt'' (1906), 5 volumes; republished by Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD., London (1988)
*Petrie, W. M. Flinders, and Duncan, Garrow J. ''Hyksos and Israelite Cities'' (1906), reprinted by Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD, London (1989)
*Petrie, W. M. Flinders. ''A History of Egypt''; Vol. I (1894), Vol. II (1896), Vol. III (1905), republished by Histories and Mysteries of Man LTD., London, 1991
* McClellan, Matt (August 24, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/ancient-egyptian-chronology-and-the-book-of-genesis/ Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis]. ''Answers Research Journal''.
* Mitchell, Elizabeth (July 22, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/ Chapter 24 - Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?]. ''Answers in Genesis''.
* Mitchell, Elizabeth (April 1, 2008). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/dating-the-pyramids/ Dating the Pyramids]. ''Answers in Genesis''.
* Mitchell, Elizabeth (September 19, 2013). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/radiocarbon-dating-shortens-the-timeline-for-ancient-egypt/ Radiocarbon Dating Shortens the Timeline for Ancient Egypt]. ''Answers in Genesis''.
* Peter van der Veen and Peter James (2015). [https://www.academia.edu/13445166] When did Shoshenq I Campaign in Palestine? in: P. James and P. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BAR International Series 2732, Archaeopress, Oxford, 2015.
* Peter James, et al., (1991). "Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology". London: Jonathan Cape; USA: New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1993.
* I Finkelstein, NA Silberman - 2002. "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts." (online) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=israel+finkelstein&ots=lTxZPqj84B&sig=MWdjr8Jqa6VyTjYeX13l3K_N37o#v=onepage&q=israel%20finkelstein&f=false]
* "Hat die Bibel doch Recht?", Peter James and Peter van der Veen, KULTUR, 2015.[https://www.centuries.co.uk/2015-hat-die-bibel.pdf]
* James, P. 2002. Review of I. Finkelstein & N. Silberman: ''The Bible Unearthed'', ''Minerva'', March/April, p. 64[https://www.centuries.co.uk/finkelstein-review.pdf]

==External links==
*[http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/manetho_hyksos.htm Quotations from Manetho and Josephus]
*Patterns of Evidence [http://patternsofevidence.com/]
*Ancient Records of Egypt ('''AR'''): The eighteenth dynasty, edited by James Henry Breasted. U. of Chicago, 1906.[https://books.google.com/books?id=IhVyAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+records&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifv7if_53XAhVJ1oMKHU2yCIQQ6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false]
*'''AR''', The twentieth to the twenty-sixth dynasties. [https://books.google.com/books?id=yNcqAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+records&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW267PgJ7XAhVF3IMKHTbCBT04ChDoAQg1MAM#v=onepage&q=ancient%20records&f=false]
*'''AR''', Ancient Records of Egypt: Indicies.[https://books.google.com/books?id=5HwUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+records&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQh63GgZ7XAhXi5oMKHWfMBNkQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=ancient%20records&f=false]

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:Bible Chronology]]