Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T14:46:48Z

StephenW: Fixing ref

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' murder,<ref>{{hnb|Dominguez}2008}}</ref> although liberals deny this, and abortion is unfortunately legal in many places.<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm]</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dominguez
| Given = Jerome
| Year = 2008
| Title = Abortion Is Murder
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://biblia.com/abortion/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-24
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T14:46:06Z

StephenW: /* Sources */ Adding Jerome Dominguez (M.D., Ph.D.) to reference section

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' murder,<ref>Dominguez, Jerome M.D., Ph.D [http://biblia.com/abortion/ ''Abortion Is Murder'']</ref> although liberals deny this, and abortion is unfortunately legal in many places.<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm]</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dominguez
| Given = Jerome
| Year = 2008
| Title = Abortion Is Murder
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://biblia.com/abortion/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-24
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T14:42:45Z

StephenW: Please desist with the liberal censorship

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' murder,<ref>Dominguez, Jerome M.D., Ph.D [http://biblia.com/abortion/ ''Abortion Is Murder'']</ref> although liberals deny this.<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm]</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T14:40:09Z

StephenW: Abortion is murder with citations

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' murder,<ref>Dominguez, Jerome M.D., Ph.D [http://biblia.com/abortion/ ''Abortion Is Murder'']</ref> although liberals deny this.<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm]</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Talk:Abortion facts

2008-01-24T14:37:23Z

StephenW: Who said murder == crime?

== Citation for "murder" ==
Since asking for a citation on the page is a bannable offense, I'll ask for it here. Can we have a source conclusively showing that abortion is in fact murder, the crime of unlawfully taking a human's life with prior intent? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:35, 24 January 2008 (EST)
: I'm not sure what you would define as "conclusively showing".
: Also, despite the link to [[murder]] and that article defining it as ''unlawful'' killing, "murder" can also be defined as the taking of an ''innocent'' human life (as distinct from, for example, executing a criminal). By that definition, it doesn't have to be shown that abortion is illegal to classify it as murder.
: In any case, in some places abortion is illegal, so that would make it murder even by the "unlawfal killing" definition.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:35, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::Abortion is not always a crime. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:30, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::Who said murder == crime? SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 09:37, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Are there any conservatives left in the Republican Party?

2008-01-24T06:35:38Z

StephenW: That's a great liberal parody.

'''Are there any conservatives left in the republican party?'''

*I think a good litmus test for a conservative is whether or not they subscribe to [[Global Warming|global warming]] theories. Global warming is a liberal scheme to have government involvement in everything. Control energy usage, enslave the masses. Now that [[Fred Thompson]] has bowed out, I don't think we have any viable conservative candidates left in the Republican party. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 23:28, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::That's fallacious. Whether somebody personally believes the science behind global warming or not does not necessarily affect their political opinions per se, or even how they approach the issue of environmentalism. That being said, I'd say one of the most conservative Congressmen is Jeff Flake (R,AZ). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::LOL. "Science behind global warming." Hehehehehe. That's a great liberal parody. You're funny. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 01:35, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T06:32:14Z

StephenW: Reverting liberal censorship

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
:*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' [[murder]].
<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Debate:Are there any conservatives left in the republican party?

2008-01-24T04:28:42Z

StephenW: New debate

Alan Keyes

2008-01-24T04:23:12Z

StephenW:

[[Image:Keyes.jpg|thumb|Alan Keyes]]
'''Alan Keyes''' (born 1950) is an [[American]] conservative activist and pundit, and was a [[Republican]] candidate for president in 1988, 1992, 2004, and 2008.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep17/0,4670,Keyes2008,00.html</ref>. In 2004 Keyes unsuccessfully ran against Democrat [[Barack Obama]] in the [[Illinois]] U.S. Senate race. According to the Obama camp as studiously reported by [[NBC]] affiliate WMAQ TV of Chicago, Keyes is alleged to have said that [[Jesus]] would not vote for Obama. <ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3712293/detail.html</ref>

During the [[Ronald Reagan | Reagan]] administration, Keyes served as an ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. This position made him the highest ranking African-African in the Reagan administration.
== External links==
*[http://www.alankeyes.com Alan Keyes for president (official website)]
*[http://www.alankeyes.com/issues.php Alan Keyes on issues]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Republican Party]]
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Keyes, Alan}}

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T04:08:21Z

StephenW: Ref=

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
:*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' [[murder]].
<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T04:06:56Z

StephenW: CITEREF

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|#CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006|2006}}</ref>
:*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' [[murder]].
<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2008-01-24T04:05:15Z

StephenW: Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United states! Adding Finer and Henshaw

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006}}</ref>
:*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Abortion ''is'' [[murder]].
<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

User talk:SkipJohnson

2008-01-23T05:19:03Z

StephenW: wp deletions

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:29, 15 August 2007 (EDT)}}
 
I suspect that you're trying to be funny, but Jay Leno has nothing to fear from you. We know that recent dates are in "AD". Improve your quality to the high level here, or expect to have your account blocked. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== categorizing articles ==

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks!

==The KKK==

I'm just curious what label you would use to describe the KKK, because I don't think "liberal" quite matches up either. I'll give you that it's confusing and probably inaccurate to call them "conservative" going by the modern layperson understanding of the term, but by a strict application of political theory they would be considered an extreme far-right organization.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*I disagree. Liberals employ [[deceit]], and so does groups like the KKK. Just as it has been proven that the Nazi's were not "right-wing", I think all you are doing, Porthos, is repeating something that was a fallacy to begin with. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:23, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Sexual continence ==

Could you please explain me this edition?:

13:59, 20 September 2007 SkipJohnson (Talk | contribs | block) (removing liberal propagandad)

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:22, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

: I misinterpreted the quote. My apologies. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 14:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism... ==

Thanks for being so alert. My IM is listed on my page, and that is usually faster than posting on pages here. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Promoted to blocking powers ==

Skip, thanks for your insights and contributions. You've been promoted to have blocking powers. Use them often with the batch of morons who just entered Wednesday night after watching [[Comedy Central]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:18, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you very much. I hope that I will use them wisely. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:30, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
==Liberal evolution==
Evolution is a scientific theory, it is neither liberal nor conservative, please don't politicize science. You can put the creationist view in as well but please don't present it as fact. --[[User:Canadarules|Canadarules]] 21:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

*In [[Sabre Toothed Tiger]] I don't see any difference between either of your versions. So don't understand the argument here. But I do understand that an Admin will be deciding who is blocked, and for what. So far I don't see anything done by either of you to warrant a block. Now you two go and place nice! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Likely Vandal? ==

*We do not block people here for "likely" unless their created user name is something pretty blatant. Perhaps you can contact me, and discuss what policy is, rather than creating all this unblocking work for me? Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:31, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

==Anarcopedia==
I did do the removal of the article, as I felt advertised and supported anarchy. But, under the assumption that I am wrong for doing so (and don't worry about my feelings here; I could indeed be wrong), please discuss it with Aschlafly. If he says it's OK, then it will be restored immediately. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: It's OK and I've restored it. Thanks for your concern, Karajou.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Pipes==

You reverted all my work. I do not understand why. And you left my merged to [[Daniel Pipes]]. What are you trying to do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== uncyclopedia ==

unlocked for 24 hours [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Edit==
I'm not entirely sure on that last edit - hence the question mark; but I think that the point being made is pro-life vs pro-choice, which wouldn't really involve the financial aspects so much as the ethical/moral position. Open to discussion though. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== wp deletions ==

I am interested. Shoot me an email. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 00:19, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Dual sovereignty

2008-01-23T05:15:27Z

StephenW: Let's make a decision on the merge

I don't really care if Dual sovereignty is merged into Federalism, but let's make a decision quickly so we can get rid of the <nowiki>{{merge}}</nowiki}} template on the [[Federalism]] page.

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:13:36Z

StephenW: /* United States Federalism */ [Federalism]]

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Worst?==

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed with the first bit. Aside from that, there are 26 court cases listed, given that two are in the first one... I love that same sex marriage is only a little bit worse than slavery but still a lot better than '''forced sterilization'''. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Epperson v. Arkansas ==

The decision in that case was not "evolution ''has'' to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ''ad hominem'' attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Worst Case==

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

: Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

: What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

: Plessy was overturned, and the list does not include decisions overturned. Cooper was the case in which the Supreme Court declared judicial supremacy, and it was not simply an "enforcement" of Brown v. Board.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2007 (EST)

== United States Federalism ==

I promoted [[Wickard v. Filburn]] to #2, because the expansion of the [[Commerce Clause]] beyond all reason was very detrimental to United States system of [[Federalism]], was done by the FDR controlled courts, and modern liberals love the decision. I hope we get more [[Clarence Thomas]]s to overturn this Unconstitutional abomination and Roe V. Wade. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 00:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:11:25Z

StephenW: /* United States Federalism */

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Worst?==

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed with the first bit. Aside from that, there are 26 court cases listed, given that two are in the first one... I love that same sex marriage is only a little bit worse than slavery but still a lot better than '''forced sterilization'''. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Epperson v. Arkansas ==

The decision in that case was not "evolution ''has'' to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ''ad hominem'' attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Worst Case==

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

: Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

: What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

: Plessy was overturned, and the list does not include decisions overturned. Cooper was the case in which the Supreme Court declared judicial supremacy, and it was not simply an "enforcement" of Brown v. Board.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2007 (EST)

== United States Federalism ==

I promoted [[Wickard v. Filburn]] to #2, because the expansion of the [[Commerce Clause]] beyond all reason was very detrimental to United States system of Federalism, was done by the FDR controlled courts, and modern liberals love the decision. I hope we get more [[Clarence Thomas]]s to overturn this Unconstitutional abomination and Roe V. Wade. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 00:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:10:55Z

StephenW: /* United States Federalism */ Wickard v. Filburn is an abomination unto the United STATES

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Worst?==

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed with the first bit. Aside from that, there are 26 court cases listed, given that two are in the first one... I love that same sex marriage is only a little bit worse than slavery but still a lot better than '''forced sterilization'''. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Epperson v. Arkansas ==

The decision in that case was not "evolution ''has'' to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ''ad hominem'' attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Worst Case==

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

: Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

: What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

: Plessy was overturned, and the list does not include decisions overturned. Cooper was the case in which the Supreme Court declared judicial supremacy, and it was not simply an "enforcement" of Brown v. Board.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2007 (EST)

== United States Federalism ==

I promoted [[Wickard v. Filburn]] to #2, because the expansion of the [[Commerce Clause]] beyond all reason was very detrimental to United States system of Federalism, was done by the FDR controlled courts, and modern liberals love the decision. After Roe V. Wade, I hope we get more [[Clarence Thomas]]s to overturn this Unconstitutional abomination . SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 00:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:07:51Z

StephenW: United States Federalism

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Worst?==

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed with the first bit. Aside from that, there are 26 court cases listed, given that two are in the first one... I love that same sex marriage is only a little bit worse than slavery but still a lot better than '''forced sterilization'''. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Epperson v. Arkansas ==

The decision in that case was not "evolution ''has'' to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ''ad hominem'' attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Worst Case==

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

: Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

: What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

: Plessy was overturned, and the list does not include decisions overturned. Cooper was the case in which the Supreme Court declared judicial supremacy, and it was not simply an "enforcement" of Brown v. Board.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2007 (EST)

== United States Federalism ==

I promoted [[Wickard v. Filburn]] to #2, because the expansion of the [[Commerce Clause]] beyond all reason was very detrimental to United States system of Federalism. SW[[User:StephenW|♠]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|♥]]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|♣]] 00:07, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:03:23Z

StephenW: Wickard v. Filburn was already here, ooops

The vast majority of the "25 Worst Court Decisions" involved some [[deceit|deception]], impropriety or inadequate scholarship, as discussed in the footnotes. (All decisions are by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] except where noted; rulings overturned by the court system are not included.)

#[[Roe v. Wade]] (and [[Doe v. Bolton]]) (1973) (legalized [[abortion]])<ref>Neither woman in these cases actually wanted an [[abortion]], and both have since attempted unsuccessfully to have these decisions overturned.</ref>
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] (1942) (granted Congress power to prohibit growing wheat on your own land) and turned the [[Commerce Clause]] on its head.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html</ref>
#[[Dred Scott v. Sanford]] (1857) (authorized slavery & denied citizenship to blacks)<ref>The Court far exceeded the controversy before it in its ruling. President [[James Buchanan]] reportedly had sought this decision privately with the Court, and the decision was rendered two days after his inauguration.</ref>
#[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]] (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2003) (mandated same-sex [[marriage]])<ref>The lead plaintiffs separated about two years after getting married.[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/]</ref>
#[[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) (banned prayer in [[public school]])<ref>The Court cited no precedential holding in its entire opinion.</ref>
#[[Buck v. Bell]] (1927) (approved of forced sterilization of low-IQ women)<ref>The case was based on a fraudulent claim that the woman was mentally retarded.</ref>
#[[Plyler v. Doe]] (1982) (mandated that all illegal immigrants be given free education in [[public school]]s)
#[[Stenberg v. Carhart]] (2000) (legalized partial-birth abortion)<ref>The Court invalidated the [[partial-birth abortion]] laws even though they had never been applied, contrary to its ruling in ''United States v. Salerno'', 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), that a facial challenge to a statute can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the statute may be applied constitutionally. The Court did not even cite or distinguish the ''Salerno'' precedent.</ref>
#[[Roper v. Simmons]] (2005) (cited foreign law to prohibit the [[death penalty]] for crimes committed by 17-year-olds)
#[[Kelo v. City of New London]] (2005) (expanded [[eminent domain]])
#[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]] (1971) (used to justify eliminating religion from public life)<ref>Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]], who later lamented hostility to religion, wrote the ''Lemon'' decision for the Court but admitted privately in a dinner conversation with [[Andrew Schlafly]] in late 1991 that Burger never intended for it to be applied in the broad manner that it was.</ref>
#[[Romer v. Evans]] (2002)
#[[Lawrence v. Texas]] (2003) (struck down sodomy laws, allowing immoral conduct)<ref>This case was a set-up whereby a false claim of a [[felony]] was reported to the police in order to compel an arrest in someone's apartment.</ref>
#[[Stone v. Graham]] (1980) (banned the [[Ten Commandments]] from display in [[public school]])<ref>The Court issued a 5-4 unsigned ([[per curiam]]) decision without hearing argument on the merits of the case.</ref>
#[[Epperson v. Arkansas]] (1968) (prohibited limitations on [[evolution]] indoctrination in public schools)<ref>Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote this opinion only weeks after he was rejected by the [[Senate]] for improprieties in his nomination to become Chief Justice,[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html] and as a new scandal was lurking that led to Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] telling him to resign. This opinion was released a mere 27 days after oral argument, which is much quicker than usual.</ref>
#[[Edwards v. Aguillard]] (1987) (banned scientific evidence of creation from [[public schools]])
#[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962) (one man one vote)
#[[Cooper v. Aaron]] (1958) (judicial supremacy)
#[[Missouri v. Jenkins]] (1985) (upheld 1990) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Montoy v. Kansas]] (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2005) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) (required criminal courts to exclude evidence if seized improperly)
#[[United States v. Callender]] (upheld the [[Sedition Act]])
#[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) (created a "right to privacy" not present in the Constitution which has been used to justify abortion and sodomy)
#[[Block v. Hirsh]] (1921) (declared [[rent control]] to be constitutional despite deprivation of rights of property owners)
#[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]] (1995)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:essay]]

Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:02:07Z

StephenW: Wickard v. Filburn is the second worst

The vast majority of the "25 Worst Court Decisions" involved some [[deceit|deception]], impropriety or inadequate scholarship, as discussed in the footnotes. (All decisions are by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] except where noted; rulings overturned by the court system are not included.)

#[[Roe v. Wade]] (and [[Doe v. Bolton]]) (1973) (legalized [[abortion]])<ref>Neither woman in these cases actually wanted an [[abortion]], and both have since attempted unsuccessfully to have these decisions overturned.</ref>
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] Turned the [[Commerce Clause]] on its head by ruling that a farmer, planting, growing, consuming his own grain on his own property affects interstate commerce, and is subject to federal regulation.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html</ref>
#[[Dred Scott v. Sanford]] (1857) (authorized slavery & denied citizenship to blacks)<ref>The Court far exceeded the controversy before it in its ruling. President [[James Buchanan]] reportedly had sought this decision privately with the Court, and the decision was rendered two days after his inauguration.</ref>
#[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]] (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2003) (mandated same-sex [[marriage]])<ref>The lead plaintiffs separated about two years after getting married.[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/]</ref>
#[[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) (banned prayer in [[public school]])<ref>The Court cited no precedential holding in its entire opinion.</ref>
#[[Buck v. Bell]] (1927) (approved of forced sterilization of low-IQ women)<ref>The case was based on a fraudulent claim that the woman was mentally retarded.</ref>
#[[Plyler v. Doe]] (1982) (mandated that all illegal immigrants be given free education in [[public school]]s)
#[[Stenberg v. Carhart]] (2000) (legalized partial-birth abortion)<ref>The Court invalidated the [[partial-birth abortion]] laws even though they had never been applied, contrary to its ruling in ''United States v. Salerno'', 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), that a facial challenge to a statute can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the statute may be applied constitutionally. The Court did not even cite or distinguish the ''Salerno'' precedent.</ref>
#[[Roper v. Simmons]] (2005) (cited foreign law to prohibit the [[death penalty]] for crimes committed by 17-year-olds)
#[[Kelo v. City of New London]] (2005) (expanded [[eminent domain]])
#[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]] (1971) (used to justify eliminating religion from public life)<ref>Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]], who later lamented hostility to religion, wrote the ''Lemon'' decision for the Court but admitted privately in a dinner conversation with [[Andrew Schlafly]] in late 1991 that Burger never intended for it to be applied in the broad manner that it was.</ref>
#[[Romer v. Evans]] (2002)
#[[Lawrence v. Texas]] (2003) (struck down sodomy laws, allowing immoral conduct)<ref>This case was a set-up whereby a false claim of a [[felony]] was reported to the police in order to compel an arrest in someone's apartment.</ref>
#[[Stone v. Graham]] (1980) (banned the [[Ten Commandments]] from display in [[public school]])<ref>The Court issued a 5-4 unsigned ([[per curiam]]) decision without hearing argument on the merits of the case.</ref>
#[[Epperson v. Arkansas]] (1968) (prohibited limitations on [[evolution]] indoctrination in public schools)<ref>Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote this opinion only weeks after he was rejected by the [[Senate]] for improprieties in his nomination to become Chief Justice,[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html] and as a new scandal was lurking that led to Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] telling him to resign. This opinion was released a mere 27 days after oral argument, which is much quicker than usual.</ref>
#[[Edwards v. Aguillard]] (1987) (banned scientific evidence of creation from [[public schools]])
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] (1942) (granted Congress power to prohibit growing wheat on your own land)
#[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962) (one man one vote)
#[[Cooper v. Aaron]] (1958) (judicial supremacy)
#[[Missouri v. Jenkins]] (1985) (upheld 1990) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Montoy v. Kansas]] (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2005) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) (required criminal courts to exclude evidence if seized improperly)
#[[United States v. Callender]] (upheld the [[Sedition Act]])
#[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) (created a "right to privacy" not present in the Constitution which has been used to justify abortion and sodomy)
#[[Block v. Hirsh]] (1921) (declared [[rent control]] to be constitutional despite deprivation of rights of property owners)
#[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]] (1995)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:essay]]

Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-01-23T05:01:10Z

StephenW: Wickard v. Filburn has got to be on this list

The vast majority of the "25 Worst Court Decisions" involved some [[deceit|deception]], impropriety or inadequate scholarship, as discussed in the footnotes. (All decisions are by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] except where noted; rulings overturned by the court system are not included.)

#[[Roe v. Wade]] (and [[Doe v. Bolton]]) (1973) (legalized [[abortion]])<ref>Neither woman in these cases actually wanted an [[abortion]], and both have since attempted unsuccessfully to have these decisions overturned.</ref>
#[[Dred Scott v. Sanford]] (1857) (authorized slavery & denied citizenship to blacks)<ref>The Court far exceeded the controversy before it in its ruling. President [[James Buchanan]] reportedly had sought this decision privately with the Court, and the decision was rendered two days after his inauguration.</ref>
#[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]] (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2003) (mandated same-sex [[marriage]])<ref>The lead plaintiffs separated about two years after getting married.[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/]</ref>
#[[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) (banned prayer in [[public school]])<ref>The Court cited no precedential holding in its entire opinion.</ref>
#[[Buck v. Bell]] (1927) (approved of forced sterilization of low-IQ women)<ref>The case was based on a fraudulent claim that the woman was mentally retarded.</ref>
#[[Plyler v. Doe]] (1982) (mandated that all illegal immigrants be given free education in [[public school]]s)
#[[Stenberg v. Carhart]] (2000) (legalized partial-birth abortion)<ref>The Court invalidated the [[partial-birth abortion]] laws even though they had never been applied, contrary to its ruling in ''United States v. Salerno'', 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), that a facial challenge to a statute can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the statute may be applied constitutionally. The Court did not even cite or distinguish the ''Salerno'' precedent.</ref>
#[[Roper v. Simmons]] (2005) (cited foreign law to prohibit the [[death penalty]] for crimes committed by 17-year-olds)
#[[Kelo v. City of New London]] (2005) (expanded [[eminent domain]])
#[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]] (1971) (used to justify eliminating religion from public life)<ref>Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]], who later lamented hostility to religion, wrote the ''Lemon'' decision for the Court but admitted privately in a dinner conversation with [[Andrew Schlafly]] in late 1991 that Burger never intended for it to be applied in the broad manner that it was.</ref>
#[[Romer v. Evans]] (2002)
#[[Lawrence v. Texas]] (2003) (struck down sodomy laws, allowing immoral conduct)<ref>This case was a set-up whereby a false claim of a [[felony]] was reported to the police in order to compel an arrest in someone's apartment.</ref>
#[[Stone v. Graham]] (1980) (banned the [[Ten Commandments]] from display in [[public school]])<ref>The Court issued a 5-4 unsigned ([[per curiam]]) decision without hearing argument on the merits of the case.</ref>
#[[Epperson v. Arkansas]] (1968) (prohibited limitations on [[evolution]] indoctrination in public schools)<ref>Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote this opinion only weeks after he was rejected by the [[Senate]] for improprieties in his nomination to become Chief Justice,[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html] and as a new scandal was lurking that led to Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] telling him to resign. This opinion was released a mere 27 days after oral argument, which is much quicker than usual.</ref>
#[[Edwards v. Aguillard]] (1987) (banned scientific evidence of creation from [[public schools]])
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] (1942) (granted Congress power to prohibit growing wheat on your own land)
#[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962) (one man one vote)
#[[Cooper v. Aaron]] (1958) (judicial supremacy)
#[[Missouri v. Jenkins]] (1985) (upheld 1990) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Montoy v. Kansas]] (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2005) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) (required criminal courts to exclude evidence if seized improperly)
#[[United States v. Callender]] (upheld the [[Sedition Act]])
#[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) (created a "right to privacy" not present in the Constitution which has been used to justify abortion and sodomy)
#[[Block v. Hirsh]] (1921) (declared [[rent control]] to be constitutional despite deprivation of rights of property owners)
#[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]] (1995)
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] Turned the [[Commerce Clause]] on its head by ruling that a farmer, planting, growing, consuming his own grain on his own property affects interstate commerce, and is subject to federal regulation.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:essay]]

Conservapedia:Essays

2008-01-23T04:53:39Z

StephenW: Reorganized

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
*Politics
# '''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay: the 25 Worst Court Decisions]]'''
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Philosophy of mixed government]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic/References]]'''
*Religion
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
*Conservapedia
#'''[[Essay:Parthian Shots on Conservapedia]]''' by [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:"How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective]]''' by [[user:AmesG|AmesG, et al.]]
# '''[[Essay:Why Conservapedia Should Stay the Way it Is]]''', by [[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]
*Wikipedia
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
*Conservative popular culture
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
*Science
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
*Other
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])
# '''[[Essay:Bias - Original work]] by [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]]

'''Please add to all essays the following text:''' "NOTE: This is an original work. Contributors to this work should add their automatic signatures to the section at the end. In the event this is published in print form, a notice will be posted here and, if desired, contributors will be recognized as appropriate."

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Bias

2008-01-23T04:48:48Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|PalMD}} admin please move this article to Essay:Bias - Original work

{{Essay By|PalMD}}

Writing can have several goals. Two of particular interest are the goal to inform, and the goal to persuade. These two goals are not inherently incompatible, but care should be taken in trying to combine them.

To inform is to convey facts. The model here is reporting. One of the goals is objectivity. Now, complete objectivity is not obtainable. Biases are inevitable. One of the first biases is in ''which'' stories are reported, both individually, and over time. For instance, if I choose to write a series of articles on a particular corrupt politician, I am, by not reporting on other politicians, scandals, etc., subtly implying that this case is somehow unique, or worse than others. This may or may not be true, and the bias may or may not be intended. I cannot very well write hundreds of articles, so I have focused on one topic. The hope is that my writing, combined with those of others with diverse views and areas of expertise, will help dilute the bias over time. If I write for a magazine whose editors chose not to include diverse views along with mine, an overall bias appears in the publication. This is hopefully diluted out by the myriad of other publications available. So the way to counter bias inherent to the choice of subjects is to create volume. More sources of information equals greater diversity of views. See the example of totalitarian societies that limit both sources of information, and access to them.

Persuasion is simpler in that, in its purest form, its biases are intentional, visible, and clearly stated. The model here is the editorial. The editors state a viewpoint and make an argument designed to convince the reader.

Neither of the above contain intentionally hidden biases. In the first case, bias is avoided, but can “creep” in unintentionally. In the second case, bias is clearly stated. In either case, ‘’deception’’ can skew the purest example of each form. Deception is the intention, but unstated, insertion of bias. For instance, if I am reporting on a corrupt politician, and I report on a bribe taken, citing false or weak sources to strengthen my story, I have inserted an occult bias when the reader expects objectivity; hence, deception.

If I am writing an editorial, deception is more subtle, because it is assumed that I will be biased, and that I am trying to convince others of my position. If I use tactics other than simple persuasion, I am being deceptive. For instance, if I am trying to convince my reader that political corruption is the greatest danger to our democracy, and I create an impression that it is more widespread than it actually is, I have deceived.

So, as a consumer of writing, public speaking , or other mass communication, it is important to know whether someone is trying to report or pursuade. Next, one must decide if deception is being used. The greatest protection against bias and deception is to consume information from many, and diverse sources. If you are a Democrat, it is foolish not to listen to Republican speakers. If you are a cardiologist, you must not just read literature from drug companies, but also read original research from as many sources as possible. As freedom requires eternal vigilance, intelligence requires eternal literacy.

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine

2008-01-23T04:37:04Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|RobS}}

{{Essay By|[[User:RobS|RobS]]}}

This is a large subject, but it would be helpful for now to examine how the American Psychiatric Association (APA) arrived at certain position statements and modes or recommended methods of treatment. Psychiatry does not exist in a vacuum, and some of its standard diagnoses are interwoven with America’s sociological development. We shall examine three areas where changes have occurred in the attitude and outlook of these professionals since roughly the 1940s and 50s.

While Psychiatrists are viewed by most of society as experts in the field of human beings ability to carry on relationships with each other, in the field there is much frustration. Most will tell you they do not have all the answers, or for that matter, even understand what the underlying problems are. Yet the whole of society, beginning with Legislators and Courts, view them as the best educated, most knowledgeable, and place unreasonable demands upon them to provide answers, or at a minimum, explanations for the curious phenomena of all sorts of inexplicable mental conditions and behavior. Since the abandonment of things like faith in God or prayer to treat some of these problems, coupled with the worship of science, or more properly, man’s ability to gain knowledge and understanding about his environment, all the societal problems of humanity are dumped upon practitioners in this field, who readily admit their limited capacity to understand let alone make recommendations.

==Juvenile delinquency==
Juvenile delinquency gives us our first insight how the field has evolved. In the 1940s, shortly after WWII ended, a great faith was placed in the field of behavioral sciences to resolve the problems of criminal behavior, beginning with youth who had not reached the stage of incorrigibility yet. Juvenile courts had existed for some decades, routinely a Juvenile Judge would adjudicate a minor law breaker as “delinquent”, and the offender remanded to state-run Reform Schools. It was a brutal and harsh thing to endure for a young person. By the 1950s Juvenile Judges sought outside expertise before rendering their judgment—they first referred the juvenile offender to a psychiatrist for observation and treatment. If the doctor recommended some alternative mode of treatment – perhaps sending an unwanted or unloved minor to live with an aunt or foster home – the judicial label of “juvenile delinquent” could be avoided, hence not stigmatizing the offender for life. IOW, the Psychiatric profession began passing the judgment upon the child as a “juvenile delinquent”, and the Courts just rubber stamped it. While juvenile delinquency was not a recognized “mental condition” by the APA, nonetheless, they were called upon by the Courts to render a diagnosis “yea or nay” for “delinquency”.

This system worked throughout the 1950s and 60s. By the early 1970s, psychiatrists began to review the fruit of their efforts. “Delinquents”, beginning adult life with a criminal record, soon ended up in adult prisons. Having spent most of their lives institutionalize, and being graduates of crime schools, they soon became incorrigibles. The APA felt they were only contributing to the problem.

Once in adult prisons, they often embraced the homosexual lifestyle completely. Psychiatrists soon saw the correlation between their “diagnosis” of a minor delinquent with their later diagnosis of an adult homosexual. It was at this time, a massive reform of the criminal justice system, or prison industrial complex, began taking shape. Deregulation or outsourcing hit the juvenile justice system, (a Thatcherization of sorts). Private “Residential Treatment Centers” took the place of state run Reform Schools, and the field of psychiatry began to shy away from the “diagnosis” of “delinquency”, except in the most extreme criminal circumstances. “Delinquency”, which never was an APA recognized disorder, was replaced with official diagnosis of "Adolescent adjustment reaction”, -- the pains of growing up.

==Homosexuality==
While the prisons were consistently being fed with the fresh fodder of youth shoplifters and thieves from Reform Schools in the 1930s and 40s, only to graduate as full fledged, well schooled criminals and incorrigibles, by the 1950s and 60s adult prisons were the place homosexual activity was regarded as normal. Homosexuality was still a crime in virtually 48 or 49 states as late as 1980. Vice Squads routinely picked up gay “cruisers” much as the do prostitutes still today. In the early 1970s, homosexuals suffered the “double whammy”, homosexuality was considered not only a diagnosable mental condition, it was also a crime.

Having established that a diagnosis of "delinquency” set a troubled youth on a path of an incorrigible criminal career and life in prison as an open homosexual, the APA began to reconsider its role in the Criminal Justice System. To their credit, they gave up all that income from a captive audience in the prisons, where virtually the whole population was being referred to them for having mental and behavior disorders – virtually all with the same diagnosis – homosexuality, the Doctors finally admitted they did not have a clue how to treat it. What was apparent, in their eyes, was their diagnosis caused the stigmatization. (As a digression, the prostitute falls into the same trap: she’s a prostitute because nobody loves her, nobody loves her because she’s a prostitute. It’s a vicious circle.)

So the APA, using the “scientific” research on decades of non-voluntary referrals, changed its classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. For probably 40 years up to that point, perhaps as much as 90% of the case studies on diagnosed homosexuals did not seek Psychiatric help willingly. And as any therapist or facilitator will tell you, a person with any kind of mental, emotional, or spiritual problem must be willing to change to obtain any sort of result. There is no magic pill to cure problems. Recognizing personal shortcomings, and a willingness to do something about it, goes without saying any further comment. The point here is, the science that declassified homosexuality in 1973, was an entirely difference science driven by entirely different set of social factors that are not in play today. The homosexual today who seeks treatment for his condition comes forwardly willingly, only to be slapped in the face, and insulted, and told he has no hope of being able to change.

==Depression==
In our final review topic, we’ll expand somewhat to look at a sub-classification common in the practice of all medical fields, and that is the difference between a disease and a disorder. A disease is considered organically based, whereas a disorder can create symptoms, ailments, and compliments, but has no recognized organic basis. “Eating disorders” for example, while not generally recognized as organically based can cause a multitude of physical and mental problems. The treatments generally consist of educating the patient about his problems and habits, and learning what behaviors are consistent with alleviating his complaints.

Since the time of Freud, “Depression” was considered a “mental disorder”, and later on more often referred to as an “emotional disorder”. The theory evolved that the root emotional problem was “repressed anger”, an inward temper tantrum direct against the self. Various forms of treatment evolved, essentially designed to get the patient to recognize the onset of anger, and to deal with it in some way other than trying to forget it. The famous “Cathartic scream” for example, was one such mode of treatment.

Like most modes of treatment descended from Freudian psychoanalysis, after decades of review surveys it was discovered one third of patients responded to treatment, one third did not, and one third deteriorated. By 1985, the Pharmaceutical lobby got into the act. A pill was designed to cure virtually all ailments, so why not invent an organic basis for depression likewise. The profession was ready to try anything, given its record of failure. Depression was upgraded from a disorder to having an organic basis, and “Bi-polar disease” became the latest fad, based upon a theory of “chemical imbalance in the brain”, i.e. scientific rendition of “we haven’t a clue”.

So now all “depressives” are no longer treated as having emotional disorders that can be treated with educational therapy. On the plus, rather than two years therapy to get the patient to understand his problem, the APA and the Pharmaceutical industry now have a patient for life. Kind of like cell phone or cable TV service, write the patient a new prescription every month for the rest of his natural existence, and its income for everybody, without the messy business of dealing with a crazy person on the couch every week for only two years with a one third success rate. Keep them doped up, and their too incapacitated to understand their real problems anyway.

<center>'''Next in the series:''' '''[[Essay: Wikipedia and private intelligence agencies]]'''</center>

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay]]

Essay:Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible

2008-01-23T04:35:52Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|TerryH}}

{{Essay By|[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]}}
'''Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible'''

[[Extraterrestrial life]], if it exists, is any [[life]] that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate. The following is an examination of the compatibility, if any, of such life with [[Christianity]] and other selected faith traditions.

== Definitions ==
No discussion can proceed without an agreement on definitions. For the purposes of this analysis, therefore, a brief glossary will follow.

''Extraterrestrial'' means "arising from out of this earth."

''Life'' means living things, regardless of size, appetite, or condition of sentience.

''Microbe'' (from the [[Greek]] ''mikros'' small) means a form of life too small to see with the naked eye.

''Sentient'' life, also called ''sapient'' life (from the official binomial name of man, ''Homo sapiens''), means life that is aware of itself and has language and the ability to reason.

''Person'' means a sentient individual.

''Race'' means a species of sentient individuals. The use of the term ''race'' to mean a clan-like "subspecies" is not in view here. In this context, humans all belong to only one race, i.e., the human race.

''Civilization'' means the organization of a large group of ''persons'' to facilitate learning, justice, order, management (or acquisition) of resources, and mutual defense.

== Types of Supposed Extraterrestrial Life ==
Discussion of extraterrestrial life centers on two distinct categories of such life. When most laypeople speak of "extraterrestrial life," they mean ''sentient'' life--that is to say, ''persons'' from another world, who are here either to reconnoiter, to trade, or to perform other such acts as a human explorer or soldier might perform. But this is ''not'' the sole category of life, nor even the sole category of life that, according to [[science|scientific]] speculation, might be found on another world or somehow come to ours. The other category of extraterrestrial life, besides the sentient, that has been the subject of speculation in scientific circles is the ''microbial''. Consideration of the existence of extraterrestrial microbes is at least as important, if not more important, than is any consideration of the existence of extraterrestrial persons, races, nation-states, or civilizations.

== Compatibility with the Bible ==
Could the finding of extraterrestrial life in either form invalidate the [[Bible]]? That depends entirely on whether microbes or races are in view.

=== The Bible and Extraterrestrial Races ===
Surprisingly, the opinion of persons other than fundamentalist [[Christian]]s, as to whether the existence of extraterrestrial races or civilizations would invalidate the Bible, is split. Many have stated that the Bible nowhere rules out the existence of extraterrestrial races. Their assertion is that no single verse explicitly says that [[God]] made [[man]] on this [[earth]] and did not make any man-like or other sentient race on any other "earth."<ref>Any planet would be "earth" to those that lived on it, just as any given people would be "the people" to its members. Consider, for example, the [[Inuit]], whose name means ''the people'' in their language. (Until recently, Westerners called these people "Eskimos," or literally, "the eaters of raw meat.")</ref> In sharp contrast, others have stated flatly that the finding of an extraterrestrial race ''would'' invalidate the Bible's claims of the uniqueness of man, and the singularity of [[Jesus]]'s death for man. Those others have faced that prospect with an enthusiasm bordering upon exhilaration.

A careful read of the Bible ''does not'' allow for the existence of any race other than man. Indeed, the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}</ref>, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}</ref>--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or "cosmos".

Consider this well-known verse, which [[Astronaut]] [[Jim Lovell]], one of the first three men to orbit the [[moon]], read aloud on that occasion:{{Bible quote|In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=KJV}}Note carefully: ''the'' earth. Not ''an'' earth, and not one earth among many, but ''the'' earth.

The Gospels, especially the one according to [[John]], refer repeatedly to "the world," in the context of both its beginning and its ending. Again, it refers to ''the'' world, not ''a'' world, nor to more than one world.

The [[Revelation]] to John (probably the Apostle, though he never explicitly identifies himself as such) also makes references to the world, both in the sense of the ''cosmos'' (the natural world) and to the ''oikoumenes'' (the inhabited world, the world of men). Again, quoting:{{Bible quote|Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee out of the hour of temptation that is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.|book=Revelation|chap=3|verses=10|version=KJV}}''The'' world--and more than that, the ''whole'' world, the ''entire'' world. The word translated ''world'' here is ''oikoumenes'', which originally stood for all the known world over which the [[Roman Empire]] held sway but which now stands for everywhere that humans live. As if to press the point, John here adds the feminine form of the word ''holos'', whence the [[English]] word "whole." He also quotes Jesus as referring to "dwellers on the earth." Again, ''the'' earth, not ''an'' earth or even ''this'' earth, or any other article or pronoun, demonstrative, personal, or otherwise, that might suggest that any earth ''other than'' or ''in addition to'' our familiar earth exists, much less is inhabited.

But suppose, as some have suggested, that our familiar human race is ''not'' the only race that [[God]] made? Then [[Jesus]] would have had to die for that race as well, thus setting at nought the verses that say that He died ''once'' for our [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sins]]. But again, suppose that other race did ''not'' fall? Would Jesus have had to die to redeem them? No--but ''God would surely have ordered that all members of this race stay a billion miles away from this earth'' until the "hour of temptation"<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=3|verses=10|version=KJV}}</ref> had passed. Therefore, ''if any contact whatsoever'' takes place between humans and sentient non-humans, then God is proved to have lied.

The spectacle of persons not conversant with the Bible, and in any event not willing to abide by its precepts for daily living and man's relationship with God and man, nevertheless presuming to suggest that the existence of, and contact with, extraterrestrial races would not affect the truth of the Bible, is nothing short of marvelous. But perhaps one conversant with, and adherent to, the fundamentals of the [[Christian]] faith ought not to marvel. After all, the history of ancient [[Israel]] is rife with religious compromise of every sort.

The chief symbol of this compromise was the [[high place]] ([[Hebrew]] ''bamah'', plural ''bamot''). This was always at root and at heart a place to worship pagan gods of fertility, husbandry, and so forth. The children of Israel often presumed to worship God at such places, but God was ''not'' pleased.<ref>God permitted people to come to a [[high place]] only as a temporary provision, when they had neither Tabernacle nor Temple--but once the Temple was built, the high places ought to have been abandoned.</ref> Inevitably, the high places returned to their original purpose: the paying of homage to pagan gods, not to the True God. Yet the confused dual use of the high places sometimes confused ''even the enemies'' of ancient Israel.<ref>Among these was [[Sennacherib]], whose chief officer, Rabshakeh, once ridiculed Israel for trusting in God after they (under King [[Hezekiah]]) had just finished removing "His" high places. Little did Rabshakeh or Sennacherib realize that God in fact detested the high places and ''wanted'' them removed.</ref>

Today, the classic high place is symbolic of anything that dilutes the Message of God, or presumes to add to It.<ref>In this regard, consider John the Revelator's explicit warning ''against'' adding to, or subtracting from, the Bible ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}).</ref> The belief in extraterrestrial persons or races--many of which are looked to as [[God-substitute]]s--is indeed a figurative "high place."

And again, not all those who believe in the existence of extraterrestrial races are would-be Bible compromisers. Some are openly hostile to the Bible. They not only ''acknowledge'' that extraterrestrial races are incompatible with the Bible; they explicitly ''declare'' and even ''celebrate'' this incompatibility. They also are among those who search the hardest for evidence of non-human races or civilizations--''even though, if such civilizations existed, they might be far more powerful militarily than the combined militaries of all human nation-states, and worse yet, be disposed to attack and conquer the earth.''

This last point bears emphasis. Our present understanding of physical law--that is to say, the [[Special Theory of Relativity|Special]] and the [[General Theory of Relativity]]--strongly militate ''against'' the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. Thus, if a non-human scout craft were ever shown, that finding alone would suggest that ''its builders have knowledge far beyond the reach of our sciences''--certainly our flight sciences and possibly all other areas of military science as well. We then could only pray (to ''whom?'') that we dealt here with a modern [[Christopher Columbus]]--and not a scout for a modern [[Shalmaneser V]] or [[Sennacherib]] or [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] or [[Cyrus the Great]] or [[Alexander the Great]] or [[Pompey]] the Great or [[Julius Caesar]] or [[Napoleon Bonaparte]]--or [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>Author [[Shane Johnson]], in ''[[Ice (novel)|Ice]]'', showed his readers what might have happened had [[Project Apollo]] continued for more missions, and an Apollo crew had then discovered a functioning military base on the moon. One of the astronauts experiences a replay of the last events on that base, and asks himself, ''Why haven't they attacked the earth? They could own it in five minutes.'' Eventually he answers his own question: the base crew did not attack the earth because they were from the earth--because the base was a product of pre-[[Great Flood|Flood]] man.</ref>

=== The Bible and Extraterrestrial Microbes ===
The finding of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' need ''not'' militate against the Bible. The Bible tells of the most serious natural disaster ever to befall the earth, known as the [[Great Flood]]. At least one theorist suggests that this Flood resulted from the rupture of a ten-mile-thick crust that once formed the surface of the earth and held most of what today we call the [[ocean]]s in a sealed chamber. The seam of this rupture persists today as the [[Mid-oceanic ridge]] system. The salient point is that this rupture released billions of [[liter]]s of water, all of it [[geothermal]]ly heated, and under tremendous [[pressure]]. Much of this water shot high into the atmosphere and fell as rain--and much of the water so propelled, was ejected into space, along with a vast quantity of mud and rock. This water, rock, and mud now persists as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids--all of which might well have been laden with microbes at the moment of the initial ejection. Thus, if these microbes were to be found again, whether in a comet's tail, or in a meteorite, or even on the surface of another celestial body, then they might be "extraterrestrial" ''only'' in the sense of being descended by several generations from other microbes that originally came ''from'' the earth.

== Conclusion ==
The themes of the singularity of the earth, and of man, pervade the Bible. King [[David]] remarked upon it himself:{{Bible quote|What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?|book=Psalms|chap=8|verses=4|version=KJV}}Non-Christians call such a position arrogant, and even suggest that it constitutes [[special pleading]]. It is not. It is a recognition that our very existence, far from being entirely-to-be-expected, is nothing short of a miracle.

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 00:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Bible]]

Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld

2008-01-23T04:34:55Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Aschlafly}}

{{Essay By|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}}
Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld

Over 200 years of legal precedent affirms that Congress may, and often has, withdrawn or limited jurisdiction by courts over certain issues. Judicial supremacists resist this congressional power, and liberals deny its full extent. But this power has always existed and helps control what Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist No. 78 should be “the least dangerous branch” – the judiciary.

Congress twice invoked this power to remove from federal court claims by suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, a territory implicitly on lease from Cuba. They were never American citizens, and were captured in foreign lands for suspected terrorist activity. They are called “enemy combatants” for that reason. These aliens, represented by an army of attorneys, challenge their detention.

Lawsuits by these detainees form a long-running controversy in the Bush Administration, for five years and counting. The detainees have no shortage of legal talent to advance their arguments. In court they were recently supported by legal filings by the Global Rights, The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees, the Legal and Historical Scholars, the British and American Habeas Scholars, and the National Institute of Military Justice.

Their argument is simply this: under federal law, a detained person has a right of habeas corpus to challenge the validity of his confinement. The Magna Carta first established this right for British citizens in 1215, and the English world has respected it ever since. The Latin phrase “habeas corpus” is not easily translated into English, but it roughly means “that one ought to have the body,” and a writ of habeas corpus forces the accuser to justify detaining "the body."

The detainees have already twice been heard and won in the Supreme Court, which grants only 1% of petitions for appeal filed by American citizens. In Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the detainees enjoy habeas corpus rights, even though they are not located within the United States. The Court held that the district court’s jurisdiction over the detainees’ custodians sufficed.

Congress reacted to this ruling by enacting the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005, which mandated that generally “no court, justice, or judge” may exercise jurisdiction over (1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus by detainees at Guantanamo Bay or (2) any other action against the government relating to this detention. A Combatant Status Review Tribunal was established to review claims rather than the court system.

But in 2006, the Supreme Court found a way around this law by holding that the DTA did not strip federal courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas lawsuits. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).

Congress responded, again, to reverse what the Court had done, again. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, which added that it “shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.”

The detainees sought to invalidate this as somehow not applying to them, and argued that it is beyond the power of Congress to limit this jurisdiction light of the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Suspension Clause is set forth at U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The D.C. Circuit, led by Judge Randolph and joined by Judge Sentelle, found no application of the Sovereign Clause to aliens held outside of the United States. Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2007). The Court held that the Sovereign Clause was not an obstacle to the traditional power of Congress to limit court jurisdiction, and they dismissed the lawsuit. Clinton-appointed Judge Rogers dissented at length, which the panel majority rejected as being “filled with holes.”

On its third trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the detainees had every reason to expect yet another intervention in their favor. But on April 2nd, the Court denied certiorari (petition for appeal) in a remarkable three-way opinion. Four Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) opposed considering the case, two Justices (Stevens and Kennedy) stated that they would not hear the case now because the detainees had not exhausted all other avenues, and the remaining three Justices (Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) wanted to hear the case. It takes four votes for there to be a grant of certiorari; the detainees fell one vote short.

The result is a victory for the advocates of limiting jurisdiction of the courts, as Congress succeeded in withdrawing jurisdiction over this highly contentious issue.

== Contributors ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]
[[Category:Circuit Cases]]

Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-01-23T04:34:21Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Aschlafly}}

{{Essay By|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}}

Increasingly many Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, are reciting, teaching and popularizing the Pericope de Adultera (Latin for "the passage of the adulterous woman"), set forth at from John 7:53-8:11. In the story a mob surrounds a woman to stone her for adultery, and ask Jesus what they should do. Jesus is describing as writing in the ground, and eventually beseeches those who have not sinned to cast the first stone. The crowd then disperses, beginning with the eldest first.

The movie ''The Passion of Christ'' includes flashbacks to a scene based on this passage; Bartleby's quotations include its famous line, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone";<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/lethimwhoisw.html</ref> and sermons are increasingly based on it. Arguments against the death penalty often cite this passage.<ref>http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Death_penalty</ref>

The account is as follows (NIV version):<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+8&section=0&version=niv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=8&NavCurrentChapter=8</ref>

:(7:53 Then each went to his own home.) 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

If the adulteress story is removed, then the passage reads more naturally as follows:

:(7:53 Then each went to his own home.) 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ... 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

Nearly all modern scholars agree that this Pericope de Adultera is not authentic. Bruce Metzger, a leading biblical scholar, put it this way:<ref>
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html</ref>

:The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

This disputed passage is inconsistent in style and sequence with the remainder of the Gospel of John. This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else. The account of the eldest leaving first, as though the eldest are holier or more sinful than younger persons, is found nowhere in any of Jesus' teachings. In no other story do the people give Jesus as much authority as this story recounts, with every single person accepting His teaching in this story. Two sentences later, the Pharisees challenge Jesus' authority.

The conservative, evangelical translation of the Bible (NIV) flatly says,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=7&version=31</ref>
"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

Amid this scholarship, why is the emphasis on this passage increasing? The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

== Contributors to this Original Work ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution

2008-01-23T04:33:37Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Aschlafly}}

{{Essay By|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}}
This is an "Essay" begun by the undersigned. Others are welcome to contribute and sign their names for possible credit (if no credit is desired, then that can be indicated also). This Essay may eventually become a factual entry in Conservapedia or could be published elsewhere. Anonymous edits without attribution are also welcome, wiki style.

----

There are several unique incentives or motivations for the [[Theory of Evolution]]. These fall into four categories:

1. Financial incentives.
 2. Ideological incentives.
 3. Political incentives.
 4. Historical incentives.

Despite these significant incentives, belief by the American public in the materialistic evolution taught in public school remains at about 13%, relatively unchanged for at least 20 years.

== Financial ==

While judicial interpretations of the [[Establishment Clause]] prohibit any funding of religious arguments, positions or beliefs, the [[Theory of Evolution]] enjoys millions of dollars in annual funding by government.

This means that millions of persons, from university professors to graduate students to government researchers to public school teachers, receive paychecks funded in whole or in part by continued support for the [[Theory of Evolution]]. If Congress or the President embraced a view that the theory were false, and cut off that funding, then the paychecks of these thousands of persons would decrease or disappear entirely.

In addition, non-profits groups such as the [[ACLU]] rely on private donors to defend and promote the [[Theory of Evolution]]. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is another non-profit that expends, and presumably raises, substantial monies by promoting the teaching of the [[Theory of Evolution]]. The salaries of individuals such organizations could decline if the theory were declared to be false. In litigation over Intelligent Design in Dover, Pennsylvania, the court ordered a payment of over $2 million to the lawyers who defended the [[Theory of Evolution]], and payments under such order contribute directly to the salaries of attorneys and staff workers at such firms.

Many graduate students in anthropology and related fields need topics and funding for doctoral work, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] fills that need. If the theory were recognized to be false, then these graduate students would be left without work and jobs.

The financial incentives may exceed $1 billion annually, and will cause a greater support for the theory, particularly among academics and government workers benefiting from the money, than would exist in the absence of these incentives.

== Ideological ==

Atheists and many agnostics have an ideological need for the [[Theory of Evolution]]. No amount of evidence contrary to the theory would convince someone who believes, first and foremost, that there is no God. This is an ideological motivation for the [[Theory of Evolution]]: it ''has'' to be true because the belief system of the person does not permit any other explanation.

The converse is not true for persons of faith. Evolutionists are quick to claim that Christianity might, in theory, allow for theories of evolution. Whether that is actually true is debatable, but supporters of the [[Theory of Evolution]] claim it to be true. But there is no such freedom of belief by an atheist.

The artificial increase in support for the [[Theory of Evolution]] out of necessity by atheists is directly proportional to the number of atheists. In circles where atheists have a large percentage, such as universities, the support for the [[Theory of Evolution]] is inflated the most by this incentive.

== Political ==

There is a very high correlation between belief in the [[Theory of Evolution]] and:
: opposition to classroom prayer (nearly 100% correlation)
: support of abortion (about 80% correlation)
: support of gun control (about 70% correlation)

The more a state imposes the teaching of evolution in its schools, the more liberal that state votes on Election Day. Tennessee is an example of a state that kept evolution out of its schools for most of the 20th century, including winning the [[Scopes trial]] to ban the teaching of human evolution. It has consistently been one of the most conservative states on Election Day, and even rejected its own native son Al Gore in 2000, causing him to lose the election.

Indiana is an example of a state that was traditionally conservative, but after embracing the teaching of evolution in its schools became increasingly liberal. This state elected Dan Quayle, one of the most conservative senators, in 1980 and 1986. But now it has a Democratic senator in his place and in 2006 it lost 3 conservative Republican incumbent congressman, more than almost any other state. Conservative congressman John Hostettler lost by a 61%-39% margin.

== Historical ==

Nearly all Americans are taught to accept the [[Theory of Evolution]] as children, before critical thinking is developed. Once accepted for years, it can become difficult for some people to question that as an adult and admit that they were misled by people they trusted, or admit that they were wrong for much of their life.

When a student does well in school, then it can become even more challenging to look at what he learned objectively and critically. The good school performance becomes an essential part of his self-esteem, and to admit that his self-esteem is based on a falsehood is simply too difficult for many people.

== Percentages still low ==

Despite all of the above, the belief in the materialistic [[Theory of Evolution]] by American adults has remained at only about 13% for several decades.

== References ==

<references/>

== Authorship ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher

2008-01-23T04:32:56Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Aschlafly}} (this looks more like an interview, revert if necessary)

{{Essay By|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}}
1) Why it is better for your cause to have a separate encyclopaedia - which is, after all, entails a lot of work - rather than just editing Wikipedia itself?

'''I've tried editing Wikipedia, but the liberal domination is so extreme there that any conservative edits are quickly diluted, distorted and eventually removed. It is thus a waste of time to make conservative edits on Wikipedia.'''

If the conservative, pro-American views propounded by Conservapedia are widespread enough to justify an entire encyclopaedia being set up, surely - given Wiki's user-edit nature - it would not be that difficult to counter the pro-liberal bias you allege in the current editorship?

'''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public, and that bias is more likely to get worse than better. Wikipedia also allows pervasive gossip and pornographic images. I think there has been a brain drain from Wikipedia. Quality conservative contributors are not going to waste their time there.'''

2) In the Toronto Star on March 11, you were quoted as saying the following: "An encyclopedia should be factual...I don't know what you mean by neutral. It's neutral to the facts." Could you expand on this statement? Surely facts are, indeed, "just the facts?" Isn't it disingenuous to say that you don't know what is being implied by 'neutral', given that this is one of the main points of controversy about Conservapedia - that it self-admittedly presents a pro-Christian, pro-American view of the world?

'''Wikipedia uses the word "militant" rather than "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations. That may be neutral towards terrorists, but it's not neutral to the facts.

There is really no such thing as a "neutral" ideology, point-of-view, opinion, or belief. Be neutral to the facts.'''

Alternatively, if facts really are 'just facts', then doesn't this undermine Conservapedia's reason for existing?

'''The facts are being censored by Wikipedia and other media, so Conservapedia is necessary.'''

3) Wikipedia's entry on Conservapedia notes that, "The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts." Similarly, Conor Clarke, writing in The Guardian (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_clarke/2007/03/a_fact_of_ones_own_1.html <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_clarke/2007/03/a_fact_of_ones_own_1.html> ), observed that:

"The other interpretation is that conservapedia is the logical conclusion of a slightly worrying trend. It's virtually impossible to write about this trend without being accused of overt, shameful liberal bias, but the trend is this: creating the appearance of a reasonable factual disagreement were no such disagreement actually exists. Conservapedia, as its name implies, does not aspire to objectivity. Nor does it aspire to fairness. It aspires to give you the impression that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts."

Would you agree with this assessment? If so, how does this fit with the tagline on the homepage, "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust"? If you don't agree, how do you respond to these accusations and those of critics such as Andrew Sullivan, Jon Swift and Carl Zimmer?

'''Conservapedia fully discloses its point-of-view and approach. The reader can then decide for himself. Wikipedia, in contrast, denies its pervasive liberal bias, fooling users into thinking it is unbiased when it really is.'''

Liberals love to deny the existence of liberal bias, but of course that is absurd. Conservapedia is exposing the liberal bias and opening many people's eyes to it.

4) On the same line of questioning, would you acknowledge that the neutrality of Conservapedia's position is not only contentious, it is merely the opinion of contributors? The entry on Fox News for example, as of today, contained significant editorialising ("Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general."). Again, how does this square with being an information source one can "trust"?

'''The opinions and biases of journalists are a matter of fact. This can be studied, polled and analyzed. No one credibly disputes the existence of journalistic bias.'''

5) How would you respond to the comments of Tom Flanagan (described as a fiscal and social conservative) in the same article, who is quoted as saying:
"It looks like this outfit is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia. I wouldn't use this thing at all...This is loony tunes stuff."

He also calls the examples of bias in Wiki which Conservapedia cites, "quixotic and narrow. So somebody has found fault with a few dozen entries out of millions. So what, really!"

Would you agree with Flanagan's assessment that Conservapedia is more a tool for the religious right, rather than conservatives generally? (Flanagan bases this assessment on the grounds that Frederich Hayek is given thousands of words in Wikipedia but just a paragraph in Conservapedia, and the same applies for David Frum and Stephen Harper.

'''The Toronto Star article was wrong in claiming Ayn Rand was a conservative (she was an atheist) and I think it was wrong in claiming Tom Flanagan is a social conservative. He is affiliated with a group that advocates legalizing marijuana, for example. So this is a strawman by the liberal Toronto Star: setting up someone who may already disagree with social conservatives in order to criticize them.

By the way, the approach of Wikipedia that more words is better is silly. Conciseness is what a reader wants in an encyclopedia.'''

6) Do you think that ultimately Conservapedia is doing your cause a disservice? Erick Erickson notes, for example, that, "Wikipedia (certainly does have) a liberal bias...as does modern academia. But conservatives do themselves and the public a disservice by walling themselves off. Christ said to the apostles, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations," not "wall yourselves off from the world and only talk to each other." Do you agree with this assessment? If so, does this undermine Conservapedia's stated aim of countering Wiki's "anti-Christian and anti-American" viewpoint? If you think Erickson is incorrect, why?

'''We're not "walling [ourselves] off" by any stretch of the imagination. We welcome all ideologies and have Sysops/administrators from all across the political spectrum. We have administrators from Australia, Canada and Britain, for example, and welcome those who disagree with conservative principles.'''

7) After some widely-reported examples of differentiation between Conservapedia and Wikipedia (on such as dinosaurs, the Democratic Party, and Harry Potter), Conservapedia appears to have toned down some of its more outlandish statements (such as, "the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs").

'''The Wiki process is one of constant refinement. I have not personally spent much time on those particular entries, and I welcome the contributions of others.'''

On this line of questioning, however, would you accept the observation of Wiki's entry on Conservapedia? For the record, this says that, "The policing of articles is accomplished by Andrew Schlafly himself, and 30 additional sysops. Throughout March of 2007, this small group (of sysops) had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia, since the majority of the dedicated editors and administrators of the site disagree with their goal of censorship of non-creationist viewpoints, and edit accordingly."

'''Wikipedia's statement here is false and misleading. Given Wikipedia's pervasive liberal bias, its falsehoods are hardly surprising.'''

8) Similarly, further evidence for this can be found at http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2&expand=true#StartComments <http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2&expand=true#StartComments> , where one of the posters writes, "I'm a contributor on Conservapedia, a liberal agnostic myself, trying to make sure that the site doesn't go too far overboard. And I can tell you that this is not a parody site. I'm blocked at every channel trying to edit out creationist propaganda by *people who truly believe it* and think that pushing creationism is what the site should be about. It's really only a few admins that keep the site as off-the-charts fundamentalist as it is, but, make no mistake, Conservapedia represents what actual creationists really believe."
Do you reject "Ames G's" views? Can you think of anything which would make him hold the view that he does?

'''I welcome Ames G's criticisms, but disagree with his statements. I think he has preconceived, anti-conservative views, as illustrated by his accusing his opponents of "propaganda". I am hopeful that a more open-minded outlook will be embraced by Ames G as he spends more time on Conservapedia.'''

'''You might also consider my interview answers at:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Accuracy_in_Academia_Interview'''

== Author ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview

2008-01-23T04:32:15Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Aschlafly}}

{{Essay By|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}}
1. How did you come up with the idea for Conservapedia?

This project began to provide a trustworthy resource for students that would be free of the liberal bias that permeates Wikipedia. This site has since grown enormously and includes contributions by scholars worldwide. The index has lectures and study lists that are helpful to students. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online resources of its kind, without the liberal and anti-Christian bias of other online sources like Wikipedia.

2. Is this your primary full-time job or do you have other projects currently in progress?

I am a conservative practicing attorney who also teaches college-level courses to teenagers.

3. What are you hoping to accomplish with this new website?

Our goals include:

-- provide a valuable resource for students, teachers, reporters, and the public that is free from liberal bias.

-- serve as the think tank of the future

-- foster and promote original insights

-- circulate daily news censored by other media outlets (see http://www.conservapedia.com for examples)

4. How do you justify Conservapedia being an accurate reference page, when “joeblow” can log on and add/ edit pages?

We have a merit-based system that facilitates correction of entries, and our "cream" rises to the top. Our editors are topflight and we have much higher standards that Wikipedia. For example, we cut down on errors by prohibiting gossip, which Wikipedia allows. We also prohibit obscenity, while Wikipedia allows even pornographic images.

5. Is every single entry reviewed for accuracy?

Entries are reviewed over time, and factual claims must have supporting citations. Liberal and poor-quality contributions are easy to spot and rectify.

6. How would you answer the charge that conservapedia is tilting the views to the “right”… just like Wikipedia tilts to the “left”? Shouldn’t an encyclopedia’s information be balanced and just represent the facts?

Conservapedia merely prohibits liberal bias. We are neutral to the facts. We have some liberal contributors, but they must stick to the facts.

7. You're claiming to be a "conservative encyclopedia that people can trust" what kind of content/ censorship guidelines will you use to measure "questionable" entries?

Our rules are simple and straightforward:

Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
Always cite and give credit to your sources,[1] even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.
Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[2]
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.

↑ Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.

8. Wikipedia has cornered the market for people to use as a quick reference... how will you be able to compete with them since they have such a head start? Can you catch up?

'''Wikipedia is like Kool-Aid, a favored first drink for kids. But like Kool-Aid, Wikipedia does not satisfy. Many Wikipedia users, particularly smarter ones, want a better “beverage”. That’s Conservapedia.'''

I think a brain drain is already occurring from Wikipedia. Quality does matter in encyclopedias.

Many Wikipedia users do not yet realize that it has pornographic images and pervasive liberal bias, and many will leave as they realize that.

9. Has your organization had any contact with Wikipedia?

No, but I have debated one of its representatives on BBC radio.

10. Any additional thoughts/ comments you would like to share with readers....

Our audience has exceeded 5 million page views. Conservapedia is the future and we welcome visits and contributions by everyone.

== Author ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Oath of Saint Luke

2008-01-23T04:31:09Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|TerryH}}

{{Essay By|[[user:TerryH|TerryH]]}}
'''The Oath of Saint Luke'''

Saint [[Luke]] was a [[physician]] and was also the author of one of the four [[Gospel]] [[Gospel of Luke|accounts]] in the [[Bible]]. Most people remember him for his authorship of this account, but few people remember him as a physician.

Many more people remember [[Hippocrates]] of Cos, the physician who wrote the famous [[Hippocratic Oath|Oath]] that bears his name. But most of those who remember Hippocrates, fail to grasp that modern physicians honor his Oath more in the breach than in the actual observance. Most physicians will say, if asked, that they took the Hippocratic Oath upon receiving their medical degrees. But the oath they likely took is a watered-down version of which perhaps three of Hippocrates' original six points remain.

[[Christian]] physicians looking for a mission statement would do well to swear by a different, stricter oath than the one that most medical students take on graduation. But understandably, they would not care to swear an oath that takes [[pagan]] gods ([[Apollo]], [[Aesculapius]], [[Hygaea]], [[Panacea]]) as witnesses.

But alternative oaths do exist. The [[Christian Medical and Dental Association]] has proposed one. Today I propose another--in honor of Saint Luke, who, if the concept "patron saint" is at all valid, would surely qualify as the patron saint of physicians.

== Text of the Proposed Oath of Saint Luke ==
I swear by the memory of Luke the Physician, and in the Name of the [[God|Father]], and of the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and of the Holy Spirit, Whom I take to Witness, that I will to the best of my ability and judgment, keep, discharge, and execute the following oath and stipulation:

# To honor [[God|Him]] Who made me as the Author of Life and Architect of [[Creation]], and to make Him Partner in my livelihood to the extent of a [[tithe|tenth]] of all my gains.
# I will prescribe regimen to my patients, according to the best of my ability and judgment, and will in all things touching my art never bring harm to anyone.
# I will give no deadly [[euthanasia|preparation]] to anyone, even if asked, nor suggest such a course. Neither will I give to any woman any drug or device, nor perform upon her any procedure, to cause [[abortion]]. But I will keep pure and holy my life and my art.
# I will forbear to undertake any procedure wherein I am not adequately trained, but will give place to them that are craftsmen therein.
# Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter for the purpose of bringing healing to the sick, and I will abstain from all wrongdoing or corruption or even the appearance of evil.
# And whatsoever I shall [[confidentiality|hear]], either within my profession or outside of it, if it be not that which ought to be publicly disclosed, I will never divulge, holding the same to be holy secrets.

Now so long as I keep my oath inviolate, may the blessings of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit attend me in all my walks--and I pray that God keep me from any such violation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control

2008-01-23T04:30:09Z

StephenW: {{Essay By|Crocoite}}

{{Essay By|[[user:Crocoite|Crocoite]]}}
During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that ''each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times.''

This archive contains “Armed Citizen” entries from the present back to 1958. The database is searchable by key word and state and results are displayed in chronological order according to the month of publication in the American Rifleman. [http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx Search the Armed Citizen Archives]

Records by each US state (as of December 23, 2007) listing one example from each state. Use this [http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx link] to see the other examples. Email ''armedcitizen@nrahq.org'' to submit a link to a story on the internet of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime.

==[[Alabama]], 141 records==
The Selma Times-Journal, Selma, AL, 01/26/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2006
{{cquote|Upon returning home, an NRA Life member received some alarming news. His wife had just seen people running in and out of her father's home. Retrieving a pistol and a shotgun, the man drove his pickup the short trip to the house in question and cornered three suspicious men sitting in a car. "I jumped out of the truck and they stuck their hands up in the car. I made the driver get out," he told a local newspaper. As he held the suspects at gunpoint, they told him they had stopped to urinate, but he didn't believe their story. "I said, 'You don't need to talk to me because the sheriff's coming and you need to talk to him.'" When police arrived, they charged the men with third-degree burglary and recovered several stolen items.}}

==[[Alaska]], 35 records==
Juneau Empire, Juneau, AK, 10/26/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2004
{{cquote|A Tee Harbor, Alaska, resident heard noises in the kitchen, retrieved a gun and went to investigate. He soon found himself facing two bears that had broken into his home. When one charged, the home owner fired, fatally wounding it. Wildlife biologists took the other intruder into custody and will relocate it.}}

==[[Arizona]], 132 records==
The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ, 03/08/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006
{{cquote|When a man dressed in black approached a woman on the street, implied he had a gun and demanded cash, she initially tried the passive approach. Police say that although she had a concealed-carry permit and a revolver tucked away, she handed some money over and hoped the robber would leave. But when that didn't work, and fearing her life was in danger, the victim drew her revolver and pointed it at the robber, who ran away. According to a police officer, "She was in fear of her life, and she defended herself appropriately."}}

==[[Arkansas]], 66 records==
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 09/15/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2006
{{cquote|Samuel Mitchell was exiting his church after choir practice, unaware that two blocks away events were in motion that would change his life. Police say a robber attempted to rob a man and woman, and the victims fled in opposite directions. The suspect pursued the female toward the church, where Mitchell had gotten into his truck. As he was leaving the parking lot, the woman climbed into Mitchell's vehicle and pleaded for help. When the suspect caught up, he stuck a pistol inside the truck window and announced a carjacking. Mitchell, who has a concealed carry permit, responded by producing his own pistol and shooting the man, who died at the hospital.}}

==[[California]], 675 records==
Los Angeles Daily News, Woodland Hills, CA, 10/19/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2007
{{cquote|A California woman was playing the role of getaway driver as her gang-member son looked for a home to burglarize, according to police. When the suspect found a target, he broke the lock on the screen door and began yelling at the female occupant. The burglar gave chase as the woman fled to the backyard, but she halted his advance with three rounds from a .38-caliber revolver. The intruder ran back to his mother, and the homeowner phoned police. When the suspects failed to locate a hospital, the "mother of the year" flagged down a sheriff's deputy. The deputy, however, was responding to the victim's 9-1-1 call and apprehended mother and son.}}

==[[Colorado]], 98 records==
Denver Post, Denver, CO, 07/20/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/10/2006
{{cquote|According to police, a 54-year-old burglar with a violent and lengthy criminal record dating back to 1969 decided to strike again. The man -- whose rap sheet includes aggravated assault with a knife, aggravated robbery, felony menacing and drug charges-entered the home of a local schoolteacher by removing an air conditioning unit from a window. The homeowner shot the intruder in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun, killing him.}}

==[[Connecticut]], 75 records==
The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 11/18/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2006
{{cquote|After an armed burglar stole $100 from his home, Angel Benitez took a self-defense class and obtained a concealed-carry permit. "This year, I'm going to prepare myself," Benitez recalled saying to himself. And, according to police, he did just that when he heard the screams of his friend, Carmen Ramos. Benitez found a man pointing a gun at Ramos. "When I saw the gun, I fired," said Benitez. "He could have killed my friend." Ramos' daughter, who was watching television, thought her mother had been shot, but then saw the burglar stumble out the door. "He was yelling 'Ow, ow!'" she recalled. A man with a gunshot wound later arrived at the hospital, but police were still investigating whether he was the intruder.}}

==[[Delaware]], 24 records==
The News Journal, Wilmington, DE, 12/13/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/2005
{{cquote|A string of armed robberies finally came to an end in Wilmington, Del., when one victim fought back. Michael Brown had been on a three-month robbery spree when he decided to rob a local liquor store. When he displayed his gun, the store owner produced a gun of his own. Brown fled, but a police officer who was patrolling the neighborhood spotted him. He was able to track down Brown, who was found hiding under a porch. Brown was linked to at least three other armed robbery attempts and was charged with each of them.}}

==[[District of Columbia]], 24 records==
The Times, Washington, DC, 12/14/94 
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/1995
{{cquote|Rebecca Griffin awoke to the screams of her daughter, who was being bound and gagged by two kidnappers in her Washington, D.C., home. She confronted the men, one of whom was carrying a knife, and brought the attack to a quick halt when she was able to break free and retrieve a .32-cal. revolver from the basement, shooting the knife-wielder four times. The other suspect fled. Griffin and one daughter were slashed during the attack. Some news accounts made no mention that the handgun that saved the Griffins is illegal in the District.}}

==[[Florida]], 400 records==
The Miami Herald, Miami, FL, 09/21/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2006
{{cquote|Just four months after burglars stole jewelry worth thousands of dollars from a Florida townhouse, four suspects attempted another heist. This time, however, the homeowners' 26-year-old son was sleeping inside. According to police, Richard McKinley heard someone entering the home, grabbed a handgun and went to investigate. He confronted four burglars, and pointed his gun at them while demanding their hasty departure. Instead, they began struggling with McKinley and he opened fire. One intruder died instantly. The others fled. "[McKinley] took it upon himself to defend himself, and I'd do the same thing he did," said a neighbor.}}

==[[Georgia]], 172 records==
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, GA, 12/7/07 
American Rifleman Issue: 12/12/2007
{{cquote|When Ronald Johnson of DeKalb County, Georgia drove home last Thursday night with his wife and two young children, he was surprised to find two men waiting for him near the bottom of his driveway. When the two men attempted to rob him at gunpoint, Johnson reacted quickly to defend his family, using his own handgun to shoot one suspect fatally and drive away the other.}}

==[[Hawaii]], 4 records==
West Hawaii Today, Kailua, HI, 9/8/98 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1999
{{cquote|When a would-be burglar armed with a handgun entered a Waialua, Hawaii, residence intent on robbing the owner, he initially received cooperation--or so he thought. The resident told the home invader that the money was in a backpack. Rather than booty, however, the burglar received a boom when the homeowner pulled a 9 mm handgun and fired two shots. After jumping from a second-floor window, the burglar ran, trailing blood and dropping his own gun.}}

==[[Idaho]], 19 records==
Marion Chronicle, Marion, ID, 03/8/03 
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2003
{{cquote|Sherry Lewis was sleeping soundly on her living room couch when she was suddenly awakened by three men who had entered her home. The intruders attacked Lewis, beating her with a pool cue. Lewis' companion, Jeffrey Shaw, tried to help her fend off the attackers, but they began assaulting him, as well, beating him and stabbing him once in the side. The men then forced Lewis' children into separate bedrooms and began ransacking the house. Shaw was then able to get a .22-cal. rifle from his room and shoot all three men, who managed to flee in a waiting car. Deputies soon found the suspects in a nearby home, all three suffering from gunshot wounds. The driver, Lisa Watson, was also present and had sustained a superficial wound. Authorities expected to file charges once the suspects were released from the hospital. As for Jeffrey Shaw, police described his actions as a clear-cut case of self defense. "This individual was protecting himself, his family and his property at the time," said Grant County Sheriff's Detective Sgt. Kevin Pauley.}}

==[[Illinois]], 215 records==
The Vienna Times, Vienna, IL, 06/09/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2005
{{cquote|If it weren't for a Vienna, Ill., woman's quick thinking, she and her husband might both be dead. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Albert Rolens heard his dogs barking and went to investigate, finding a partially opened sliding door. When he reached to close it, a man wearing a stocking cap, gloves and a large coat thrust a rifle through the open door and forced his way inside. The intruder instructed Rolens to wake his wife and unplug the telephones. The couple told the intruder to leave, but he refused to go without their granddaughter, his former girlfriend. After several tense minutes, Mrs. Rolens convinced the intruder to let her husband go to the bathroom to take some medication. Once there, Albert entered an attached bedroom and retrieved his .45-cal. revolver, which he pointed at the man, again telling him to leave. When Mrs. Rolens grabbed a cell phone and ran to call 9-1-1, the intruder darted after her. Fearing for his wife's safety, Albert shot the gunman once in the head, killing him.}}

==[[Iowa]], 28 records==
The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA, 12/20/00 
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2001
{{cquote|When a 71-year-old Des Moines, Iowa, man answered the door at his home one afternoon, he was met by a pair of ruffians wearing ski masks and brandishing a martial arts weapon. After they beat the elderly resident with the nunchaku hardwood sticks connected by chain or rope they ordered him to remain seated while they went after his grandson upstairs. But as the intruders beat the 27-year-old resident, his grandfather came to the rescue armed with a gun. As he fired on one suspect and then the other, each leapt out separate windows and fled.}}

==[[Indiana]], 156 records==
Kokomo Tribune, Kokomo, IN, 09/06/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2006
{{cquote|According to police, when Michael Slonaker heard an unexpected, midnight-hour knock at his door, he cautiously answered it armed with a handgun. Unbeknownst to him, two juveniles were standing behind his front door, one clutching a baseball bat and the other holding a shotgun. As Slonaker opened the door, the juvenile holding the shotgun began to raise it. Slonaker fired two shots, hitting both assailants. The shotgun-toting youth, who had been on probation, was killed. His accomplice was arrested when he sought treatment at the hospital for a gunshot wound.}}

==[[Kansas]], 79 records==
Independence Daily Reporter, Independence, KS, 07/12/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/10/2006
{{cquote|Police say a man may have broken into a residence in conjunction with a plan to rob a local bank. When the homeowner confronted the suspect he was ordered to wake his wife and get the keys to the bank where she is employed. The homeowner went to the bedroom, leading the intruder to believe he was waking his wife. But instead he told his wife to call 9-1-1 and grabbed a handgun from the nightstand. He told the burglar to raise his hands and drop any weapons he had. Reportedly, he dropped a 12-inch butcher knife to the floor before sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene.}}

==[[Kentucky]], 64 records==
The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY, 4/10/02 
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2002
{{cquote|Charlotte Venters and her boyfriend, Brent Billings, were at home at a Muncie, Ind., mobile home park when a neighbor kicked in their door and held a steak knife to Billings' throat, threatening to kill him. Venters came out of another room armed with a gun and warned the intruder not to harm her boyfriend, said Delaware County prosecutor Richard Reed. When the suspect pointed his knife at Venters and made threatening remarks, she shot and killed the intruder. Prosecutors later said their attacker had been arrested at least 17 times in the past 11 years on various charges.}}

==[[Louisiana]], 129 records==
The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, 01/14/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2006
{{cquote|According to police, a man stole a fire extinguisher from a dialysis center, then attempted to use it to break into a nearby home. A detective responding to a burglar alarm at the dialysis center witnessed an armed citizen thwart the alleged home invader. "While [the detective] was waiting for uniform patrol, he noticed a commotion across the street at a home," said a police spokesman. The detective reported that the man was allegedly trying to break through the front door using the fire extinguisher, but was shot in the groin by one of the occupants. The suspect was arrested on multiple charges after his release from the hospital.}}

==[[Maine]], 19 records==
Bangor Daily News, Bangor, ME, 06/15/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2005
{{cquote|Thanks to his trusty .22 rifle, it took less than 10 minutes for a Waldo County, Maine, man to rid his home of intruders. The man and his wife, both in their 70s, were awakened at 6:30 a.m. when their front door was smashed open. The intruders -- at least two of them -- blindfolded the woman and left her in the living room. They bound her husband's feet to the footboard of his bed and threw a pillowcase over his face. The home-invaders repeatedly asked the couple "where the stuff was," said Maine State Police Detective David Tripp. Exactly what 'stuff' they were looking for was unclear, but police speculate they may have been looking for drugs. While the intruders were elsewhere in the house, the man freed himself and retrieved a .22-cal. rifle kept by the side of his bed. When one intruder returned to the room, the man fired a shot at him, hitting the bedroom wall. "They fled the residence," said Tripp. It was the fourth home invasion reported in Waldo County in the past year.}}

==[[Maryland]], 94 records==
Maryland Independent, Charles County, MD, 04/08/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2005
{{cquote|A woman living in Charles County, Md., initially turned to the judicial system to seek protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend. "I have been afraid to come forth and speak out for fear of him doing bodily harm to me and threatening to burn down my home," she said in her petition requesting a protective order. "The last four years have been a living hell. I am contemplating purchasing a handgun for my protection." After twice violating the court order, the man, described as a violent drug addict, broke into the home and began beating her current boyfriend with a metal pipe. This time she was indeed armed with a handgun, which she used to shoot and kill her attacker. Police said she had not been charged with a crime and that they considered her a victim.}}

==[[Massachusetts]], 78 records==
Boston Herald, Boston, MA, 01/23/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2004
{{cquote|A Somerville, Mass., resident had just stepped out of his shower when he heard unusual sounds at the back of his house. When a man broke through his back door, the homeowner retrieved a handgun, confronted the intruder and shot him in the shoulder. The wounded burglar ran from the house, but police were able to track him by following a trail of blood to a nearby rail station. The suspect was treated at a local hospital for the gunshot wound, and police were expected to charge him with breaking and entering.}}

==[[Michigan]], 170 records==
Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 10/18/06
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2007
{{cquote|Customers were browsing the shelves at a food store shortly before closing time when three men entered the building. Police say the men waited for the customers to leave before announcing an armed robbery. Once they emptied the store's coffers, the robbers took all store employees to the back of the store and bound them with duct tape. With a gun aimed at his head, the store manager, who has a concealed-carry permit, freed himself and drew a .45-caliber handgun. The manager fired several times, striking his assailant twice. The injured robber died while the other suspects fled. "In my opinion, if this man had not had a gun, my concern is that they would have executed these people," county prosecutor William Forsyth said.}}

==[[Minnesota]], 43 records==
Isanti County News, Cambridge, MN, 4/21/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2004
{{cquote|A Cambridge, Minn., man awoke to the sound of breaking glass. He retrieved a shotgun and began checking rooms when he encountered three men who had entered his home. Two of the intruders fled, but the homeowner held the third man, later identified as Robert Hanson, at gunpoint while he awaited the arrival of police. The other two suspects were apprehended and the three were charged with aiding and abetting felony first-degree burglary.}}

==[[Mississippi]], 43 records==
The Commerical Dispatch, Columbus, MS, 07/18/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2005
{{cquote|Billy Franks awoke from a deep sleep to find two armed men demanding cash and threatening to beat his 67-year-old wife, Sherry, with a baseball bat. The intruders then made good on their threat, bruising Sherry's arm and breaking Billy's
arm in two places. That's when Sherry remembered the .22-cal. revolver her 70-year-old husband kept tucked under his pillow. "When she picked up the gun and pointed it [at the would-be robbers], they panicked and started running," Billy said. Sheriff's Department Captain Joe Young lauded the couple's handling of the situation. "People try to prey on senior citizens because they think they're easier to mess with, but this couple showed that's not always true," he said, adding, "I think it's a good idea for people to keep a handgun in their homes, just in case something like this happens."}}

==[[Missouri]], 146 records==
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo., 02/07/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2006
{{cquote|After an 87-year-old woman's home was burglarized, her daughter gave her a .38-caliber handgun so she’d be prepared if it happened again. That gesture may have saved the senior citizen's life. According to the police, early one morning, the woman awoke to the sound of a man breaking into her home. Calling for help wasn't an option; he had cut her phone wires. After the man removed the security bars from the woman's porch and attempted to access the front door, she fired a round from her pistol. The would-be intruder lay dead on the woman's porch for nearly four hours before her daughter showed up for breakfast. "She couldn't call for help and was afraid to go outside," said a state policeman. Authorities are investigating whether the man, a career criminal, was also responsible for the first burglary.}}

==[[Montana]], 16 records==
Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, MT, 06/03/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2004
{{cquote|Andrew Atkinson was looking for trouble one Wednesday night as police were called to investigate a disturbance he had caused at a Malta, Montana, tavern. Still on the scene at the tavern, police were then called to a nearby home where an intruder had been reported. Robert Taylor said that a man, later identified as Atkinson, had forced his way through Taylor's front door. After a fierce struggle, the 59-year-old homeowner shot Atkinson in the leg. Both men were hospitalized, and Taylor was released with minor injuries. Upon his release from the hospital, Atkinson was to be arrested and charged with burglary, according to Phillips County Sheriff Tom Miller.}}

==[[Nebraska]], 20 records==
World-Herald, Omaha, NE, 10/23/02 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2003
{{cquote|A couple was sleeping in an Omaha, Neb., apartment when three people broke in about 4:30 in the morning. The intruders began beating the male resident and he and the woman staying with him each grabbed a handgun and fired on the trio, shooting two of the suspects.}}

==[[Nevada]], 51 records==
Gazette-Journal, Reno, NV, 01/18/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2006
{{cquote|While sitting on her couch working on her computer in the early morning hours, a woman heard a noise at her front door. According to police, she saw two men through the peephole, so she grabbed her shotgun and chambered a shell. The would-be burglars kicked the door open only to find themselves staring down a gun barrel. "Get the [expletive] out of here!" the woman shouted, according to a police report. The men fled the scene.}}

==[[New Hampshire]], 20 records==
Portsmouth News Herald, Portsmouth, N.H., 11/5/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2004
{{cquote|A man showed up at David Oeser's Eliot, Maine, home at 1:30 in the morning, began pounding on the door, then forced his way inside. Oeser retrieved a handgun and fired, wounding the home invader, who, it turned out, had a criminal history of four assault convictions.}}

==[[New Jersey]], 85 records==
Newsday, Melville, N.Y., 8/5/00 
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2000
{{cquote|Eighty-four-year-old William Harris was in his Southampton, N.J., home one morning when a man intent on burglary ripped out a back porch door screen and broke a chain on the kitchen door, according to police. When Harris, recovering in bed from cataract surgery, heard roommate Benjamin Davis yell out a warning, he grabbed his 16-ga. shotgun from a closet. When he met the intruder in the darkened kitchen, the man thought the better of his plan and fled. Davis later said of Harris, "He's not a pushover. He'll stand up as long as he can to whatever he has to."}}

==[[New Mexico]], 53 records==
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, NM, 08/22/03 
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2003
{{cquote|Justin Doyle was roused at 11 p.m. one night by loud banging on his back door. In order to protect his pregnant wife and 19-month-old child who were at home, Doyle retrieved his rifle while his wife dialed 9-1-1. Suddenly a glass door was smashed in with a cinder block and a man with a knife burst into their home. Doyle shot the home invader once in the torso, killing him. Police later identified the suspect as Manuel Villa. "The law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect their homes, lives and property," said police spokesman Jeff Arbogast. "Out of fear for his life, and the lives of his family, Mr. Doyle armed himself with a rifle and shot the intruder. It's a tragic event to have to go through."}}

==[[New York]], 309 records==
Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, NY, 05/26/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2004
{{cquote|A Bergen, New York, homeowner returned to his house around 10 a.m. to discover two men and a woman in the process of burglarizing his home. The resident drew a handgun on the trio. When the men attempted to escape in a van, the homeowner punched out one of its windows. One of the men then threw gasoline at him from a can and the men took off. The homeowner continued to hold the woman at gunpoint until police arrived. Police later arrested the two men, and all three suspects were charged with burglary.}}

==[[North Carolina]], 174 records==
Associated Press, 01/17/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2006
{{cquote|Carlton Whitted, Sr., woke up after hearing a loud noise reverberate throughout his home. "It sounded like a bomb went off," he said. What he heard was two men in their 20s kicking in the door of the isolated, rural North Carolina home. Police say the men shot Whitted's wife and daughter in the legs. Whitted then grabbed his .22-cal. rifle from the corner of his bedroom and shot both intruders, who fled on foot. The suspects turned up at a hospital where they faced several felony charges upon their release.}}

==[[North Dakota]], 6 records==
The Tribune, Bismarck, ND, 3/26/86 
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1986
{{cquote|Asleep in his isolated rural home near Fort Yates, N. Dak., Dick Barrett was awakened when both front and back doors crashed in and four men appeared, threatening his family with clubs and axes. But Barrett grabbed his revolver, and when the fight was over one intruder was dead, two of them were wounded, and the Barretts were unharmed.}}

==[[Ohio]], 233 records==
Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, OH, 07/10/05 
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2005
{{cquote|Gayle Martin was sound asleep when the doorbell rang at 5 a.m., but he didn't open the door because he didn't recognize either of the two men standing on his porch. He continued watching the men through his front window as they went around his house and began battering his back door. Within moments, the two thugs came crashing through the door into the kitchen and living room area. That's when Martin drew his .357 Mag. and fired three shots, causing the men to run away. "They were in the house," Martin said. "They had just broken in. I didn't let them get any farther." Authorities found the home invaders nearby, both suffering from gunshot wounds. Grant County Sheriff Randy Middleton called Martin lucky to be alive, adding, "He's a good shot."}}

==[[Oklahoma]], 108 records==
Denton Chronicle-Record, Denton, TX 06/17/03 
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2003
{{cquote|Stephen Heller was visiting with a woman who had called him and then come over to his home when two masked men armed with a pistol broke in, beat him and tried to tie him up. During the struggle, Heller used his knife to cut one man and then grabbed his gun and fatally shot the other man, later identified as Scott Howard. The woman, Wyndie Odom, fled on foot with the other assailant, identified as Travis Lee Smith. Odom's car was still in Heller's garage as he had closed the garage door after she pulled in. Detective Sgt. Roger White said it was believed the woman had brought the men with her to rob Heller and that they had hidden in her trunk when she pulled into Heller's garage. Odom and Smith were later arrested in Ardmore, Okla.}}

==[[Oregon]], 89 records==
The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore., 02/11/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2006
{{cquote|The motivation behind a brutal assault in Oregon has yet to be determined. According to police, a man answered a knock at his front door and quickly found himself under attack by a stranger wielding a collapsible metal baton. The intruder beat the victim on his head and back, while yelling that he was going to kill the man as they fought throughout the first floor of the two-story dwelling. The victim managed to break free and run to his upstairs bedroom. It was there that he grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and turned the tables. He shot the intruder at least twice, killing him.}}

==[[Pennsylvania]], 243 records==
Times-Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 04/28/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2006
{{cquote|An ex-con with an already extensive criminal rap sheet allegedly broke into a residence with a crowbar. Once inside, he grabbed an additional weapon, a Samurai sword, off the wall and accosted two men and a woman inside the house. The two men proceeded to flee the residence. When the alleged burglar tried to rob the woman, a concealed-carry permit holder, she drew a firearm and shot her assailant, then ran from the house. The man was booked on charges of aggravated assault, terroristic threats, robbery and other charges.}}

==[[Rhode Island]], 15 records==
Providence Journal, Providence, RI, 6/18/99 
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1999
{{cquote|The tranquility of poet Carlton Eddy Breitenstein's Providence, Rhode Island, home was shattered one evening when an intruder suddenly appeared on the second floor. The 83-year-old Breitenstein defended himself with a gun, sending the man fleeing. Police later caught the suspect who sustained a gunshot wound to the chest that required hospitalization. Breitenstein had been assaulted in his house the previous afternoon and had been the victim of a break-in little more than a week earlier.}}

==[[South Carolina]], 83 records==
The State, Columbia, SC, 08/17/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/11/2006
{{cquote|According to police, two men wearing masks invaded Allen Cooper's home and began robbing him at gunpoint. Cooper gave one of the masked men some cash, but, unsatisfied, they ordered him to call back two people who left the house prior to the robbery. Cooper contacted Rhea McCary and James Robertson, who returned, but sensed something was wrong. When they arrived, Cooper bolted out the door yelling, "They've got guns!" The attackers began shooting, striking McCary in the arm, but McCary returned fire, killing one of the suspects. The second suspect fled and was still at large at press time.}}

==[[South Dakota]], 7 records==
The Tribune, Mobridge, SD, 5/22/85 
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1985
{{cquote|A man broke into Burrell Brown's Mobridge, S. Dak., home and found the gunsmith's loaded .44 Mag. revolver. He was soon confronted by Brown, who had armed himself with a .45 pistol. "I could see he had the hammer cocked, so I knew if I shot to kill, his reflex action would pull the trigger and I could be dead," Brown said later, so the 73-year-old NRA Life Member neatly shot the gun out of the robber's hand and held him for police.}}

==[[Tennessee]], 182 records==
The Times News, Kingsport, TN, 03/11/06
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2006
{{cquote|Lowell Wilson heard a noise coming from the bedroom where his wife was resting and went to investigate. When he tried to open the door, a man closed it, so Wilson retrieved his gun. "My wife is blind, and she thought it was me [in the room]," he said. "He opened the door ... and stuck his head out. He said, 'It's cool, man. It's cool.'" But it was far from "cool." Wilson shot the intruder, who fled with an accomplice. Police planned to charge the injured suspect after his release from the hospital. Wilson said he'll always feel safe in his home as long as he has something to use for protection. "I know I can take care of myself," he said.}}

==[[Texas]], 392 records==
Caller-Times, Corpus Christi, TX, 10/11/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2007
{{cquote|Police say a man confronted Rose Ann Kozlowski and her 14-year-old son at their home, then bound them with neckties in the master bedroom, held them at knifepoint and threatened their lives. The intruder began ransacking the home for jewelry and other valuables, which he placed in the family's SUV. Meanwhile, Kozlowski managed to free herself and untie her son. She retrieved her husband's revolver, handed it to her son and locked the double doors to the bedroom. The incensed intruder pushed at the doors, partially opening them as he waved his knife. The teenager aimed his father's pistol toward the opening between the doors and squeezed the trigger. The armed robber dropped dead.}}

==[[Utah]], 35 records==
Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, UT, 02/01/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2006
{{cquote|A man asleep in his apartment was awakened by a knock at his door. Police said that when he answered it, no one was there. Then a man shattered a window in the home and began entering through it. The resident armed himself and ordered the intruder to leave. When the alleged burglar failed to comply, the resident shot him. The suspect was treated for wounds to his leg and hand at the hospital and charged with burglary.}}

==[[Vermont]], 14 records==
The Messenger, St. Albans, VT, 10/11/91 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1992
{{cquote|Lulah Lavery was home with her daughter at their Richford, Vt., home when they heard the sounds of a forced entry. As her daughter phoned police, Lavery loaded a shotgun and went to investigate. Finding a man reaching through a broken backdoor window, Lavry fired a single blast. The man fled, but a wounded suspect was quickly apprehended.}}

==[[Virginia]], 123 records==
The Dickenson Star, Clintwood, VA, 12/22/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/2005
{{cquote|As Clyde Colley looked down at the gunshot wound in his leg and then up at his wife, he decided that if he did not do something, they would both die. Almost two hours earlier, two men had broken into their Sandlick, Va., home, shot Mr. Colley and ordered the elderly couple to get on the floor. As one of the intruders held the couple at gunpoint, the other ransacked the house. Finally, Colley said that he was not feeling well and needed to go to lie down. This excuse gave him enough time to get to his gun, which he fired twice, killing one intruder and sending the other fleeing into the night. As their phone lines had been cut, Mrs. Colley was forced to run down the driveway and flag down help. Police later apprehended the surviving intruder, Mazel Sexton, and charged him with numerous felony counts. Colley was not expected to be charged in the death of the intruder, who was identified as Hubert Howard, Jr.}}

==[[Washington]], 169 records==
The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, WA, 07/09/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2004
{{cquote|Lisa Hansen awoke one morning to the sounds of someone moving around inside her house. Then someone ran up her stairs and attempted to open her bedroom door. "I waited to listen to see how many footsteps I heard," Hansen said. Deciding there was only one intruder, Hansen grabbed her cell phone and reached for a gun she keeps under her bed. She ran out of the room, confronted the burglar and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The would-be burglar turned out to be a teenager who lives in the neighborhood and had previously done some lawn work for Hansen. The teen said he had entered her home only because he saw a man in there, but Hansen did not believe the explanation. Police later discovered a checkbook belonging to Hansen's cousin in the boy's pocket.}}

==[[West Virginia]], 28 records==
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV, 10/20/06 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2007
{{cquote|Police say Rodney Hendrick and his wife were sleeping when a 24-year-old man smashed a front door window, waking the couple. Mr. Hendrick went to investigate, armed with a .357 Magnum revolver, and found that the suspect had left. Foolishly, the suspect soon returned and lofted a brick at the front door, knocking it open. He entered the residence, and Hendrick fired a single shot. The intruder died at the scene.}}

==[[Wisconsin]], 55 records==
Phillips Bee, Phillips, Wis., 8/18/04 
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2004
{{cquote|After a series of break-ins at his Phillips, Wis., home, Gary Gabrielsen waited up one night. After first knocking on the door, a would-be burglar then checked various entry points until he picked the lock on the back door. Gabrielson then held a shotgun on the crook until police arrived. The capture of the suspect broke up a ring suspected in a lengthy spree of break-ins, police said.}}

==[[Wyoming]], 7 records==
The Wyoming State Journal, Lander, WY 
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1983
{{cquote|As NRA Life Member Rex Burroughs drove away from a Lander, Wyo., restaurant, two men pulled up, blocked his car, and demanded money at gunpoint. When the driver yelled "kill him," his partner aimed and pulled the trigger. The gun failed to fire, and Burroughs was able to draw his own revolver and shoot the gunman. The robbers then sped off.}}

Category:Essays

2008-01-23T04:29:05Z

StephenW: category

Essays

Essay:Gun control

2008-01-23T04:28:05Z

StephenW: Essay By (me)

{{Essay By|[[User:StephenW|StephenW]]}}
'''Gun control''' is the idea that a 115 pound stay at home mother who lives in a rural area should have to fist fight a 205 pound rapist.
[[Category:Gun control]]

Template:Essay By

2008-01-23T04:27:03Z

StephenW: Essay by template

<center>{{QuoteBox|'''This essay is an original work by {{{1|signed users}}}. Please comment only on the talk page.}}</center>
<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
[[Category:Essays]]
</includeonly>

Essay:Gun control

2008-01-23T04:25:55Z

StephenW: New page: '''Gun control''' is the idea that a 115 pound stay at home mother who lives in a rural area should have to fist fight a 205 pound rapist. Category:Gun control

'''Gun control''' is the idea that a 115 pound stay at home mother who lives in a rural area should have to fist fight a 205 pound rapist.
[[Category:Gun control]]

Conservapedia:Essays

2008-01-23T04:23:52Z

StephenW: Essay:Gun control

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.

#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:Parthian Shots on Conservapedia]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:47, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''', by --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:37, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Style]]'''
#'''[[Essay: the 25 Worst Court Decisions]]'''
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[["How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective]]''' by [[user:AmesG|AmesG, et al]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])
# '''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Bias - Original work]] by [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]]
# '''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 00:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
# '''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Philosophy of mixed government]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic/References]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Why Conservapedia Should Stay the Way it Is]]''', by [[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]
# '''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by --[[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 123:23, 22 January 2008 (EST)

'''Please add to all essays the following text:''' "NOTE: This is an original work. Contributors to this work should add their automatic signatures to the section at the end. In the event this is published in print form, a notice will be posted here and, if desired, contributors will be recognized as appropriate."

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Liberal

2008-01-23T04:13:55Z

StephenW: /* Liberalism in North America today */ stub eyesore

A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* [[abortion]]
:* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[affirmative action]]
* [[political correctness]]<ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Free public [[education]] regardless of family income
* government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]<ref>See also [[Republican in name only]]</ref>
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|top|<center>One satirist's conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal

2008-01-23T04:13:26Z

StephenW: My pass

A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* [[abortion]]
:* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[affirmative action]]
* [[political correctness]]<ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Free public [[education]] regardless of family income
* government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]<ref>See also [[Republican in name only]]</ref>
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|top|<center>One satirist's conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

== Liberalism in North America today ==
{{stub|section}}
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive Set 1

2008-01-22T16:40:05Z

StephenW: Link to Archive 16

*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_2|Archive 2]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_3|Archive 3]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_4|Archive 4]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_5|Archive 5]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_6|Archive 6]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_7|Archive 7]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_8|Archive 8]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_9|Archive 9]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_10|Archive 10]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_11|Archive 11]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_12|Archive 12]]
*[[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_13|Archive 13]]
*[[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 14|Archive 14 (December 2007)]]
*[[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 15|Archive 15]]
*[[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 16|Archive 16]]

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 16

2008-01-22T16:39:30Z

StephenW: Archived

== Errors in Disproving Evolution ==

Well, the sheer number of things I could say about this page are extensive, but I'll restrict myself to one passage - the part about scientists being 'wrong' about animal behaviour and the Bible being right. Why this section is on this page is a total mystery. It seems to be attempting to disprove the theory of evolution by disproving...well...science, basically. However, the main point is that upon reading the sources for these claims, the evidence is not as clear-cut as this section makes out. Let's take the lions first. Firstly, the source claims that 'Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw', and goes onto say that this is contradicted by the Bible which states that, 'The lion...strangled prey for his lionesses'. Well, firstly, how did the lion strangle the prey? My guess would be, maybe, biting it in the throat or neck - one of the two ways given by this source that naturalists claimed the lion killed it's prey. Secondly, even this source agrees the Bible got it wrong - it is the LIONESSES that do most of the hunting, not the lions.

Let's move onto the snakes. The source says that zoologists and scientists have claimed that snakes are deaf, or almost totally deaf. It then provides a passage from the Bible which seems to claim that snakes can hear. It then provides third-hand evidence in the form of a newspaper article quoting a Dr. David I Macht who was told by 'a number of Hindu physicians' that snakes respond to musical tones. Hardly conclusive. It then goes onto provide what seems to be a wealth of evidence DISproving that snakes can hear - instead they sense vibrations through the ground they are on. It then goes onto providing evidence that suggests snakes MAY be able to hear certain limited frequencies of sound. Not that snakes DEFINITELY hear.

Then let's address ants. Firstly, this source tells of a passage in the Bible where the diligence of ants storing up provisions is an example to be emulated. This source then goes onto to quote another source that 'It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food'. This, presumably, also included the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers and philosophers, what we would, perhaps, call 'scientists' now. He then provides another source which explains it all in full detail - 'The ancient writers lived around the Mediterranean where harvesting ants are common. Probably they considered all ants as harvesters. Many centuries later, the beginning of modern science blossomed forth in more northern temperate countries, where harvesters are unknown. And so it was that these northern scientists by the eighteenth century began first to question, then to refute, the existence of any such creatures. The pendulum of scientific thought had swung in the opposite direction, despite the fierce opposition met in defying the word of the Bible.
In the nineteenth century, as ants were studied more carefully and in additional parts of the world, it was gradually learned that some ants, although not all, are harvesters. Thus was removed the tarnish that in some scientific circles had dulled the veracity of Solomon.' The earlier thinking that ants were not harvesters was not proven wrong, per se, but merely proven incomplete - all of the ants in temperate ares were not harvesters. Some of those further south, nearer the Mediterranean, were.[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 11:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:Harvester Ants are a species native to Arizona. Maybe a better term should be used to aviod confusion. Maybe 'agricultural' ants? {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}}
: I'm not going to address most of your post, because most of it refers to matters that I don't know a lot about, but regarding your first comment about why the section is there, see the [[#Scientific Community Consensus|Scientific Community Consensus]] section above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::Well, even the claim that 'it is there to prove that science is sometimes wrong and the Bible is always right' does not make sense - one of the sources used for this claim even actually agrees that certain behaviour by lions seems inconsistent with the Bible's claims. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:16, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== What does the ToE have to do with atheism? ==

Last time I checked the theory of evolution was a scientific theory, not a metaphysical view of the world, therefor it has nothing to say on the existence of any gods whatsoever. By conflating the Theory of Evolution with atheism the authors of this article are being intellectually dishonest. {{unsigned|2112}}
:That evolution is a scientific theory is one of the claims of its supporters, but is questioned by creationists. Whether it is considered scientific or not, it is based on the assumption of naturalism, i.e. that there is no God. At least two prominent evolutionists have said that it was Darwin's intention to explain things without God. And others have said that evolution supports their atheism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:00, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::That's not the point. The point of the poster was to highlight the fact that it's 100% possible to believe in a created world and an intelligent designer, AND evolution. In fact since evolution has evidence and a created world has no evidence the evolution theory is more valid than the created world theory.
::Darwin was a Christian, who did not feel comfortable with his theory as it did seem to him to remove the power of God, but it actually makes God even more impressive. What's more powerful, to click your fingers and the universe to be created, or to click your fingers and the big bang occurs, creating the evolution of the universe and all organisms within it? Darwinian Evolution is NOT evidence against the existance of God, nor is it in any way related except to unintelligent fundamentalists who believe that a book written slowly over thousands of years by humans with political aims, is the direct word of an invisible man who lives in the sky. {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}}
:::: I don't agree that that was the point of the poster, and I'd suggest that you don't know for sure either, unless you are he under a different name. But even though you are correct that it is ''possible'' to believe in both evolution and a Creator (although not the God of the Bible), I didn't actually say that it wasn't possible, did I? I was basically making a case that the two are closely intertwined; I didn't say that they were totally inseparable.
:::: That there is no evidence for a created world is nothing more than anti-creationist nonsense. In fact, as creationists have said before, both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is the interpretation put on that evidence.
:::: Darwin was raised in a Christian society and was nominally Christian to start with, but became an agnostic or atheist. I cannot agree that evolution makes God more impressive, but that's a non-issue really. The point is that evolution is ''contrary'' to both the biblical record and to the nature of God as described in the Bible. So it's not just a question of whether God could have used evolution, but whether he ''did'' use evolution. The biblical record says that he did not, so belief in evolution requires (if one is being consistent) a disbelief in what the Bible teaches about creation. That is, the two are not compatible.
:::: And your contempt for what you term "fundamentalists" and for the Bible is blatant. When you resort to abusive ad hominem arguments to make your point, you have no point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so, does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously. You can believe ungrounded 'facts' if you like, but I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is, and that all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe. So to all intelligent, non-fundamental theists can and should accept evolution if they consider the evidence in favour of it. If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today".
:::::The point is, that the article is saying "Atheists believe in evolution, therfore it is wrong." But that's absolutely not the point, atheism (the existance or non existance of God has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution exists.[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: "''...an English book ...''": An English ''translation'' of a book written mostly in Hebrew and Greek. Not that that changes anything, but that's the point: Your mention of it being English is irrelevant, and suggests that you don't really know what you are talking about.
:::::: "''Anyone who cannot see that an English book is not the word of a non-physical meta being just because it says so does not live up to the levels of intelligence I expect from people who accept to be taken seriously''": We don't believe it to be the Word of God "just because it says so". Anyone who thinks that's the only reason we consider it God's word shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
:::::: "''I've never met an intelligent religious person who thinks that the world was literally created in six days as is...''": Neither have I. We don't believe that it was created in six days "as is". We believe that it was created perfect (without fault) in six days, but that because man rejected God, it has deteriorated since. Furthermore, God later destroyed the world with a flood. So the world that you see today is ''not'' the world that God created in six days. If your point was the "six days" rather than the "as is", then, hello, I'm Philip. Pleased to meet you. There, you've just met an intelligent person (I like to think so anyway) who does believe that.
:::::: "''...all the evidence of historical and modern natural selection and evolution was planted by God to fool us scientifically minded folk who investigate our universe.''": Oh, so much wrong with that one sentence!
::::::* Creationists ''believe in'' natural selection! It was described by a creationist before Darwin popularised it. But [[natural selection]] is not evolution.
::::::* We don't believe that God "planted" evidence to fool us. We accept the evidence (fossils, rock layers, etc.), but have a different story to explain them.
::::::* Creationists ''are'' scientifically-minded. That's why many creationists are scientists!
::::::* Science ''is based on'' creationism. See [[natural science#Beginnings|Natural science]]. Science was started by people who believed that God created a world that was able to be investigated.
::::::"'''If they don't then coming up with something other than "but this doesnt sound like what was written down thousands of years ago when we didnt understand the universe like we do today".''": That doesn't sound like a complete sentence. But more to the point, that's not the rationale for creationism, and that presumes what it's trying to argue. That is, it ''presumes'' that God doesn't exist or didn't create as explained in the Bible, and that the Bible was therefore written by primitive men who didn't know what really happened. Conversely, if the Bible is true, then it had the all-knowing God Who created the world as its ultimate author, and He ''understands the universe and knows what happened''! An argument that assumes its own conclusion is a circular argument.
:::::: What your post has shown is that you have no idea of the issue that you are discussing. If you want to be taken seriously on a subject, make the effort to find out about it before ranting off about how wrong it is and its supporters are.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: As [[Richard Dawkins]] said evolution allows people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists. Without evolution atheism fails. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:41, 20 December 2007 (EST)
One way of phrasing it, perhaps, is that evolution is a ''necessary'' condition for atheism but not a ''sufficient'' one. That is, atheism requires a naturalistic explanation of origins, but evolution (even if it's correct) does not preclude the existence of God. Or, alternatively, atheism requires evolution, but evolution does not require atheism.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 16:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: True, except as I've just added above, evolution is inconsistent with the biblical record and with the God of the Bible. That is, I'm only agreeing that evolution can be consistent with a god of one's own invention. Another point is that many atheists use evolution as an argument against God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Agreed, at least in part. In my comment above, I meant to refer to God in a more general sense, not the God as presented in the literal Biblical record in particular--sort of a "natural knowledge of God" vs. "revealed (biblical) knowledge of God" distinction. I'd add that I think that the "evolution occurred, ergo no divine being can exist" argument is pretty weak, and I speculate that more than a few atheists would agree. I'd say (although I could be wrong) that atheists would view evolution as an "enabler" of their (non)belief system rather than a basis for it, which might be what the Dawkins quote that SkipJohnson mentioned refers to.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 12:15, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:That's very true. Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument. If God created the world, God created evolution. I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist. God and the bible are again, totally unrelated. All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct?
:The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered, so instead in our investigation of the world we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things. Should they prove a few popes wrong, I dont see how that is an attack on God. 'God' is not the same thing as 'religious doctrine' [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:: "''Just as "no missing link has been found therfore hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God" is a nonsense argument''": Which may be why creationists don't use it. But a legitimate argument is, "no missing link has been found therefore ''it's reasonable to conclude that'' hominids did not evolve from primates but were placed on Earth by God". That is, a lack of evidence for evolution doesn't ''prove'' creation, but it does tend to ''support'' the idea.
:: "''If God created the world, God created evolution.''": That presumes that evolution exists, which is really the point in contention, isn't it. A circular argument again.
::"''I see no reason to suppose that the Bible need be 100% literally correct for God to exist.''": Most Christians don't consider the Bible to be 100% literally correct. They recognise the existence of analogy, parables, metaphor, etc. But creationists ''and non-creationist experts'' do consider the creation account to have been written as literal history.
::"''God and the bible are again, totally unrelated.''": That's your unsupported opinion, not an argument. I believe that there's good reason to believe otherwise.
::"''All you know of God is what other people have told you, why are you to suppose they are correct?''": That opinion relies on your previous unsupported opinion. Most of what I know of God is what the Bible tells me.
::"''The question of the nature of God is one that cannot be answered...''": How do you know it cannot be answered?
::"''...we look at evidence and conduct experiments to determine the nature of things''": As do creationists, who, unlike you, don't ''a priori'' rule God out as part of the explanation.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Man you have to get edits to talk in quick before being banned for 'Not using your real name'. Odd how it's not required when you sign up. User1601 is PsychoDolly [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: The registration page says (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. '''Frivolous user names''', names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, '''may also result in that user name being blocked'''. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Quote Mines ==

This article is of extremely poor quality. Over half of it consists of quote mines. The author took quotes from well respected scientists and quoted them in a way that makes it look as if those scientists were doubting the theory of evolution. If the author would actually go to the original source and find the quotes for himself or herself, instead of relying on creationist sources, they would quickly find out that the intention of the scientist is far from what the quote mine suggests. {{unsigned|2112}}
: Please specify which quotes make the scientists look like they doubt evolution. I ask because (a) we can't correct it if we don't know which ones you are talking about, and (b) I've heard this claim made incorrectly before, so I doubt that it's true. I will add, though, that I'd agree that the intention of the scientist is not to question evolution, but that doesn't mean that you can't quote them saying something that contradicts evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::I agree with the OP. I was reading it trying to find something actually about the Theory of Evolution, but could not. The entire article is very quote heavy (approx 50% is pure quotes). If you submitted this in any form of achedemic examination it would achieve a failing grade.
::While it may well be that the theory of evolution is not complete; and indeed creating the very FIRST life has not been possible to replicate; to not explain what it is and instead simply quote out of context many people (some names such as Matt Ridley are even incorrect) and to then lock the article so it cannot be edited... It really makes me think this website is worth nothing when it comes to reliability of information and balenced reporting. {{unsigned|PsychoDolly}}
::: I'm not defending the article overall, and have said before that it's not the way I'd like it, but you repeat the accusation of the quotes being out of context yet despite all the discussion on this above, still don't actually show how any are out of context. So I think that ''your accusations'' (well, that one anyway) are "worth nothing". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 20 December 2007 (EST)
::::I honestly don't know of half of the quotes used on the article. Those that I have heard of were not intended to be taken to the extreme they have been. For example; Darwin's statement that he could not imagine how the eye could evolve - yes he could not imagine it, nor can I. It does not mean we think that defeats our argument.
::::You use evidence of a bacterial flagellum, which the article claims cannot be reduced - well yes it can. The proteins that are in the plasma membrane are the same as those found in active pumps, meaning that a flagellum is not evidence of something existing that cannot have evolved.
::::While trying to post comments to this talk page I've been banned twice, so forgive me if I don't care what you think of my opinions. Nobody can change the page as it is locked, and the people writing it had an obviously biased viewpoint. I'm not in the slightest bit convinced you are interested in the truth. [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:25, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::::: Umm, what statement from Darwin about the eye? I just did a search on "eye" in the article, and could find no such statement. Perhaps you mean the statement by Mayr? Okay, you're right: It doesn't mean that Mayr rejects evolution. But that's the point: Here's ''an evolutionist'' admitting that not only is there no evidence for something, it's barely even possible to ''imagine'' how it could happen!
::::: That the plasma membrane has the same proteins does not negate the argument. That's like trying to refute an argument that the motor of a train could not have come about by evolution by pointing out that the nuts in the motor are also found in the body of the train.
::::: As for bias, you wouldn't be biased on this, would you?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Examples of Transitional forms ==

In your section on transitional forms you should include some positive evidence for the theory of evolution, instead of blatant quote mines. There are plenty of transitional fossils in the record, such as tiktaalik, the 'fishibian', and archeopteryx. {{unsigned|2112}}
: "Plenty"? Then why is it that the same handful of questionable ones keep getting cited? From memory, Gould rejected the Archaeopteryx as transitional, and tiktaalik is far from convincing[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250/]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::Since we were talking about Gould earlier, you may want to know that he considered archaeopteryx a transitional, or in his own words, ''''… is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find - a complex mélange of reptilian and avian features.'''' P144 - 145 of ''Bully for Brontosaurus'', copy write 1991. My question is this. Since you consider Gould to be an authority on whether or not a specimen is transitional, will you heed the suggestion of the previous commenter and recommend archaeopteryx as an excellent example of a transitional form and include it in this article?

::Why did you link to a Jonathan Sarfati article concerning ''Tiktaalik roseae''? Why not the original peer-reviewed article in ''Nature''? --Jimmy 14:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)
::: There appears to be a distinction between ''intermediate'' and ''transitional''. We were talking about ''transitional'' fossils; Gould referred to Archaeopteryx as ''intermediate''. In order to show that one creature has evolved into a quite different creature (such as a reptile into a bird), you need more than just a third creature that has aspects of both. Reptiles lay eggs, mammals have fur, and the platypus both lays eggs and has fur. Does that make it transitional, or just a creature with features in common with both? (I hope the answer is obvious.) What you need is a whole series of transitions that demonstrate a smooth process. Gould's point, apparently, was that there is no such thing. Archaeopteryx was the nearest one could get to an intermediate form, but failed to show this smooth transition. The quote that I was referring to from Gould is, "Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." So whilst he ''may'' not have been rejecting it as intermediate between reptiles and birds, it is not an example of a ''transitional'' form.
::: The Sarfati article provides the reference for the Nature article, so you got both for the price of one! Secondly, the Nature article is only available for members or for a fee. Thirdly (though in no particular order), I'm sure that the Nature article would not have highlighted the problems with considering the fossil to be intermediate.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 20 December 2007 (EST)
::::I can tell you are grasping at straws here. An intermediate fossil is for the most part synonymous with transitional, please read up on the difference before casually discarding Gould's assertion. Where did you get your quote mine about Gould anyway? This is just one of the things that aggravated him when he made his famous quote about creationists and stupidity. His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments." Do yourself a favor and try to get the quotes of biologists from primary sources, not creationists; it's less embarrassing that way.

::::As far as the ''tiktaalik roseae'' article is concerned, should I believe an article that has gone through a rigorous peer-review or a short blurb written by someone operating on the fringes of science? I wonder why Sarfati didn't submit his rebuttal to ''Nature''; it would be nice if creationists participated in the scientific process instead of merely critiquing others.--Jimmy 23:18, 20 December 2007 (EST)
::::: If you had asked politely instead of with such insult and arrogance, I would have provided the source, but you can find it for yourself now.
::::: I agree that "for the most part" an intermediate fossil is synonymous with a transitional one, but Gould seems to be making something of a distinction, and I was trying to accommodate what he was saying, not "discard" it, as you seem to be doing by arrogantly referring to it as a "quote mine", despite me doing nothing different to you, i.e. quoting Gould.
::::: Was Gould really aggravated by Creationists ''misquoting'' him, or by the fact that other evolutionists were criticising him for providing ammunition to the creationists? I believe the latter to be the case, if for no other reason than I've never seen an explanation from him of just ''how'' he was misquoted. Rather, there was just the bald assertion.
::::: Sure, I totally agree that 'His theory of punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for why there are no "smooth intermediates … even in thought experiments."'. But you seem to miss the point. Punctuated equilibrium was the explanation for an ''observation'', yet you seem to think that creationists shouldn't quote him on that ''observation''.
::::: I'm not the embarrassed in the slightest by getting quotes from creationists, when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Your slur against creationists is offensive and I ask that you apologise for it.
::::: I also ask that you apologise for the slur that creationists operate "on the fringes of science". That is arrogant evolutionary elitism. Why didn't Sarfati submit his rebuttal to ''Nature''? Apart from the fact that he wrote it for a different audience, he knows better than I do that secular journals like ''Nature'' don't publish views supporting creation, ''simply because it supports creation''. Yes, it would be nice if such journals ''allowed'' creationists to participate in the scientific process instead of being excluded from it. Can I count on you to argue for that as strongly as you've argued in your post here? Please forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that your answer will be 'no'.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 21 December 2007 (EST)
::::::If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it. Until then, Gould's words stand as they are plainly written. I am insisting that creationists are misusing Gould's comments about punctuated equilibria because Gould made the accusation himself and he was tired of it, it's that simple.

::::::I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said.

::::::I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts. There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html] I find it hard to believe that some creationists actually think Gould supported that drivel, yet you don't have to look far to find it.

::::::It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists. The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals, they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts. If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati.

::::::What did Darwin do when he published his book? He had to convince his peers that his theory had merit. I don't ever recall reading about him complaining to his city council or gripping about the mean ol' men that didn't like his theory. If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you? I would love to see creationists work within the science community; then maybe we wouldn't see the constant harping that goes on.

::::::Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. These scientists have worked very hard over the past few centuries and evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it. These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again.--Jimmy 14:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: "''If you have some evidence that a significant number of scientists accused Gould of providing ammunition for creationists, then please provide it.''": How about Gould's own words?
{{QuoteBox|But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.}}
::::::: Do want to know where that came from? From the reference that ''you'' provided! Here's another (also from Gould):
{{QuoteBox|Our theory became the public symbol and stalking horse for all debate within evolutionary theory. Moreover, since popular impression now falsely linked the supposed ‘trouble’ within evolutionary theory to the rise of creationism, some intemperate colleagues began to blame Eldredge and me for the growing strength of creationism. Thus, we stood falsely accused by some colleagues both for dishonestly exaggerating our theory to proclaim the death of Darwin (presumably for our own cynical quest for fame), and for unwittingly fostering the scourge of creationism as well,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/]}}
::::::: "''I'll try again, if you want to know how creationists are misquoting Gould, try reading what he wrote, don't read the articles of creationists that claim they have the inside scoop on what Gould or scientists like him actually said.''": Then I'll try again too (because you've added nothing new): I'll keep using creationist sources when I know that those creationists are careful to check from the primary sources that the quote is accurate. Furthermore, I'm doing no different than you seem to be doing. Your claims that creationists are misquoting seem to not be taken from the creationists' quotes, but from anti-creationist accusations about them. How about ''you'' go to the original creationist sources?
::::::: "''I didn't intend to slur anyone. Facts are facts.''". Of course facts are facts. But rhetoric and opinion are not facts, and much of what you wrote was opinion. And opinion that puts someone down is a slur.
::::::: "''There are still creationists like Duane Gish that insist Gould's theory meant a bird hatched from a reptile egg.''": Still? I thought that you were claiming "facts"! Your reference doesn't say when Gish said that, but your reference dates to 1981! So Gish said that, at a minimum, more than a quarter of a century ago! And you've misrepresented Gish anyway. According to your source, Gish actually said that this is what Gould ''apparently'' believed. Furthermore, he had reason for doing so.
{{QuoteBox|In this regard Gould spoke favourably of the ideas of Richard Goldschmidt, a German palaeontologist from the mid-1900s who ... proposed a ‘hopeful monster’ theory, where the major body plans were seen as arising suddenly, by some sort of macromutation. This was popularly portrayed as being like a bird emerging out of a reptile egg—a ‘hopeful monster’ theory. Undoubtedly some creationists have misconstrued Gould’s work, conflating Gould’s writings on speciation and macroevolution, and then characterizing PE as a ‘hopeful monster’ theory. But some evolutionists have ‘misunderstood’ Gould too. Maybe this is not surprising, since Gould’s article had the term in its title,["The return of hopeful monsters"] and he said:<blockquote>‘I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.’</blockquote>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1585/]}}
::::::: "''It is a fact that creationists are at the fringes of science because the vast majority of biologists, anthropologists, etc are evolutionists.''": That creationists have a different view of origins doesn't mean that they are 'on the fringes of science'. Many creationary scientists do normal (empirical) science, often for secular institutions. There's nothing fringe about their science, it's just that they have different views on origins.
::::::: "''The creationist biologists don't even try to get their papers published in journals,...''": They often don't because they know from experience that it would be a waste of time. But it's simply not true that they've never tried.
::::::: "''...they just try to force their views by using public opinion, the legislature and the courts.''": Ha! It's the evolutionists who censor creationist views from classrooms. It's evolutionists who scream if the media promotes creationists views. It's evolutionists who censor creationist views from science journals. Yet you've got the gall to say that it's the ''creationists'' who are trying to force their views on people! The attempts to use legislature (which, by the way, the leading creationist organisations do ''not'' support), have for the most part been attempts to stop the censorship by evolutionists, and most of the court cases have been by evolutionists trying to overturn the legislation to maintain that censorship!
::::::: "''If you think I'm wrong, then show me a paper sent to a journal from the likes of Sarfati.''": Do you mean:
:::::::* a paper showing that a creationists can do publishable science? Try [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-3YB50V4-1R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=088c21882fc8cb4e2481d561f5866d46 this one] by Sarfati.
:::::::* a paper published in a secular journal that puts views opposed to evolution? There's [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science this famous one].
:::::::* a paper submitted to a secular journal but rejected because it was from a creationist? Try [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol19/costtheory.pdf this one].
:::::::"''If we could actually look a creationist paper that was rejected by a science journal, then we could see why it was rejected. I don't know of any paper, do you?''" If it was rejected, there's a good chance that I can't show it to you. Nevertheless, see the third bullet above, which was rejected by (at least) two secular journals.
:::::::"''Thank-you for referring to evolutionists as elitists. ... These educated men and women are truly the elite, I thank you again''": Whilst that's a clever play on words, I'm sure that you know as well as I do that that's not what it means.
:::::::"''...evolution has withstood everything that has been thrown at it.''": Bald, unsubstantiated, assertion, and of course a view that I strongly disagree with.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Hello Phil, back from vacation.

::::::::Thanks for the links about Gould. Please note what Gould stated in one of your quotes. '''"It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion." ''' Are you now admitting Gould's work was being distorted and used against him by creationists?

::::::::The sooner you realize that the vast majority of scientists are not creationists and they do not even attempt to work within the scientific establishment, the sooner you will understand this is the reason they are considered a fringe group.

::::::::Evolutionists do censor creationists views from the classroom, that's suppose to happen to non-scientific woo-woo. Would you like alchemy in chemistry class or astrology in the astronomy classroom? That's what Behe stated during the Kitzmiller trial, he actually said his definition of science would include such subjects. Sounds like the dumbing down of science in order to promote their snake oil. It is a fact that the majority of creationists aren't even trying to find scientific evidence for their so-called ID theory. Behe made this admission during Kitzmiller also. Your assertion that creationists don't use the legislature is absolutely false. The Discovery Institute worked with former Senator Santorum to push creationism in an education bill. They were unsuccessful.

::::::::Your three examples of creationists attempting to publish were amusing. What did Sarfati's paper have to do with creationism? I admit I am completely unfamiliar with the paper's content, maybe you could inform me. Sternberg's paper had nothing to do with the subject content of the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' and it was immediately disavowed. The third paper you mentioned was not rejected for the writer's creationist views, but because the publication '''"… rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves and some of their colleagues in the 1970s." '''

::::::::The fact that evolution is a theory accepted by the scientific establishment is not unsubstantiated. If creationists want to think otherwise, then they are free to think so. But the mere incredulousness of the creationists will not undermine the vast evidence and support of evolution.--Jimmy 12:45, 1 January 2008 (EST)

(unindent) There's so much nonsense in that post that this is going to be a long response. :-(

"''Are you now admitting Gould's work was being distorted and used against him by creationists?''": Of course not! What makes you think that?

"''The sooner you realize that the vast majority of scientists are not creationists ...''": I've never thought otherwise. Again, you seem to be plucking ideas from the air.

"''...and they [creationists] do not even attempt to work within the scientific establishment''": Absolute rubbish. More unfounded anti-creationists rhetoric. So far there's nothing correct in your post.

"''Evolutionists do censor creationists views from the classroom...''": Ah! Finally a correct statement!

"''...that's suppose to happen to non-scientific woo-woo.''": Yes, but we are talking about creationism here, not "non-scientific woo-woo". Please don't introduce red herrings.

"''It is a fact that the majority of creationists aren't even trying to find scientific evidence for their so-called ID theory.''": If this is a "fact", you ought to be able to produce some hard evidence, then?

"''Behe made this admission during Kitzmiller also.''": Behe is an ID proponent, not a creationist.

"''Your assertion that creationists don't use the legislature is absolutely false.''": I didn't say that they didn't. Reread what I ''did'' say.

"''The Discovery Institute worked with former Senator Santorum to push creationism in an education bill. They were unsuccessful.''": Apart from my previous answer, the Discovery Institute is an ID organisation, not a creationist organisation.

"''Your three examples of creationists attempting to publish were amusing.''": I'm glad to give you some enjoyment, but I'm not amused at you now trying to change the rules (see my following comments).

"''What did Sarfati's paper have to do with creationism?''": You didn't ask for something "to do with creationism". Changing the rules after the event is a lousy way to make your point.

"''Sternberg's paper had nothing to do with the subject content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington...''": So what? You asked for a paper, I cited one, so now you dismiss it with an irrelevant criticism. More changing of the rules.

"''...and it was immediately disavowed''": It's validity was not disavowed. Under pressure from anti-creationists/anti-ID people, the society tried to distance themselves from it. But this doesn't change that it is a peer-reviewed anti-evolution paper published in a secular science journal. You're simply trying to weasel out of the obvious.

"''The third paper you mentioned was not rejected for the writer's creationist views...''": That is your opinion, but just because they weren't up front about the reasons doesn't mean that wasn't the reason.

"''but because the publication "… rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves and some of their colleagues in the 1970s." ''": Which was clearly a [[furphy]], as that is not reason to not publish the paper.

"''The fact that evolution is a theory accepted by the scientific establishment is not unsubstantiated.''": Again, if you properly read what I wrote, that is not what I was disputing.

"''But the mere incredulousness of the creationists will not undermine the vast evidence and support of evolution.''": First, creationist objection is not "incredulousness", and second, you are again merely ''asserting'' "vast evidence", which is what is disputed.

If you want to argue against creationism, you need to (a) answer the actual allegations put, not simply reassert them or bring up irrelevancies, and (b) have a working knowledge of the viewpoint that you are arguing against.

:I'll have to let your response speak for itself, there has been one too many administrators complaining about the 'divisiveness' of my posts. Maybe we can discuss other issues another time.--Jimmy 21:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Evolutionist = Atheist? ==

Don't you think its intellectually dishonest to claim that defenders of evolution are atheists, for two reasons, # 1, most scientists are religious theists, and # 2 - quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate.
Also, how can religious theists have it both ways, suggesting that Charles Darwin recanted on his death bed but then suggesting he is an atheist. I for one love our lord and savior jesus and think jesus would be sad to see that us good christians are lieing on this page.
-soliderforjesus

: The most outspoken promoters of [[evolution]] are, like [[Richard Dawkins]], [[atheists]]. It is a fact. Sure, some people can be found who say they both believe in [[evolution]] and are [[Christian]], just as one can find [[Americans]] who burn the American flag. But the exceptions do not prove the rule, and there's no doubting that [[evolution]] is pushed and promoted by [[atheists]] more than by churches.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:: No I don't think that it's honest to do so ''if'' it is presented as an absolute rather than a generalisation. But you didn't quote the sentence, and I don't feel like looking for it from that description, so I can't comment more.
:: But your comment that "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" appears to be bigoted nonsense, if I understand you correctly. Perhaps you can elaborate and/or justify?
:: That Darwin recanted on his death bed is an urban myth, and rejected by the leading creationist organisations. So no contradiction there.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I'm not sure you're correct there. 'Most outspoken atheists believe in evolution' would probably be better. I'd imagine most atheists believe in evolution as the 'God did it' answer can't apply to them. I know a lot of theists believe in evolution, but have never heard of an atheist who did not. While all atheists may be evolutionists, not all evolutionists are atheists. I think a distinction needs to be made there. [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:29, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:::: As I said, the specific sentence wasn't quoted, so without what's likely to be a fair bit of searching, I can't comment further. Point me to the specific sentence and I will probably change it if I think it's misleading. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::Philip, I think what he/she meant by "quoteing sources that are anti-evolution is probably not accurrate" was that the article garners most of its content from creationists attempting to debunk the evidence. I don't feel it was made in bad faith. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::: Well, it was vague enough that you might be correct, but that's why I asked the poster to elaborate. But I'm still not sure that justifies it. It's still basically saying that those who interpret the evidence to mean something other than evolution are not accurate, does it not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:Just to provide you with some numbers: According to Miller et al [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5788/765], 78% of all Americans agree with the statement ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct'', while 62% agree with ''Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.''. This means that at least 40% believe both, like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:48, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:: I don't have access to that article, and perhaps it's not so bad in context, but as you've quoted it there, that first question is poorly worded. Apart from the "millions of years" bit (which is not what is being discussed), I (a young-Earth creationist, for those that don't know) could agree with that first question. So it may well not be an accurate figure of evolutionists.
:: Regardless, I think Andy's point was not so much about the average man in the street and what he passively "believes", but the ''promoters'' of evolution.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I can't tell you what the numbers for science communicators are. If you or Andy has some, and a reference to them, I would be interested to know them, too. To access the paper ''Public Acceptance of Evolution'' by Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, you or your institution will need to have an subscription. I can tell you that if you google for Miller, Scott and Okamoto and the title "Public Acceptance of Evolution", you'll find easily a copy that is freely downloadable. The figures and questionnaire are given in the document with the supporting material. The respondents had to tell for a few statements if they were "true", "not sure" or "false". Given the statement ''Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct.'', 78% said "true", 16% "not sure", and 6% "false". Given the statement ''Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.'', 62% said "true", 2% "not sure", and 36% "false". There were other statements too. As said, this are the numbers for the general public, and I don't know the numbers for science communicators, but it'd be grateful if someone could provide them. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:: Okay, I've found the paper and the supporting material (although it took a bit of hunting for the latter, and I only found it by also searching for the text of the question, which was not in the paper, then following a link). It doesn't change what I said that the question is poorly worded. And in my searching, I found a site that said essentially the same thing (amongst other criticisms of the paper)[http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i6f.htm] (their emphasis).
::{{QuoteBox|Clearly, the problem with the question is that '''they asked two unrelated things at once'''. Effectively, they asked, “Do you believe the earth is millions of years old?” and “Do you believe plants and animals adjust to their environment in order to survive?” '''Young earth creationists do believe in extinction and adaptation, so they might have said “yes” despite the “millions of years.'''”}}
:: I don't know of any surveys of promoters of evolution, but [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ this article] makes the point. I'm not sure what you mean by a "science communicator", but what I (like the linked article) am talking about is the main promoters of evolution, not just the educators, text-book writers, etc.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:If you think that some YECer might be confused by the question, I have to take your word, but it does start with the phrase "Over millions of years". A YECer can always say, "not sure". And the site that you mentioned to be critical of Miller et al, is frankly of a fairly poor quality. To give an example, from the statement that there exists a positive correlation between genetic literacy and acceptance of evolution in as well the US and Europe, the author concludes that the US reject evolution to a higher degree is due to a higher genetic literacy. I am somewhat disappointed that the author, a programmer, choses to not understand what positive correlation entails, just to make a poor argument. The link on evolutionists that you mentioned is just a collection of anecdotal evidence. No, I was indeed asking for some decent research either a literature survey, or a poll, among science communicators, which are all the people who explain science to the public. I know that the nun that taught me evolution is school believed in theistic evolution, but as said that is also just anecdotal evidence. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:41, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:: Saying that a YEC might be "confuse" is ignoring that ''the question was poorly worded'', and the linked page explained why (as highlighted above): ''they asked two unrelated things at once''.
:: The bit about genetic literacy cause me to have similar thoughts as the critic. It ''seemed'' as though they were saying "Americans understand genetics better than Europeans, and Americans reject evolution more than Europeans, but this is because the Americans don't ''really'' understand genetics better". In their words, "Although the mean score on the Index of Genetic Literacy was slightly higher in the United States than the nine European countries combined, results from another 2005 U.S. study show that substantial numbers of American adults are confused about some of the core ideas related to 20th- and 21st-century biology." In other words, it appeared that they were trying to explain away something that didn't fit with their theory. Rereading it, I'm not so sure that's the case, but the critic's comment appears to be along the same line. Nevertheless, the critic (rightly) ties that in with the badly-worded question. From the paper: "When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM)." This is the point that I was making above. Despite this comment, it is ''not'' a description of evolution, but a description of [[natural selection]], which creationists accept (and described before Darwin) and which is ''not'' synonymous with evolution.
:: I don't agree that the other article I linked to is "anecdotal" per se, but I did say that I don't know of a survey as such, which indicated that the article was not a survey either.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think that the question is poorly worded. People should be used and able to understand sentences that tell you ''what'' happenend ''when''. But if you tell me that you are confused, I take your word. And if you tell me that a significant percentage of YECers would be confused as well, I take your word too. But I think if someone says yes to a sentence that starts with "Over millions of years" he or she cannot believe too firmly in YEC.
:If there is a positive correlation between genetic literacy and acceptance of evolution, then there is a positive correlation. You'll need to look for a different explanation to explain that the average acceptance in the US is lower while the average genetic literacy is higher. Because also in the US holds, the higher the genetic literacy, the higher the acceptance of evolution.
:Yes, the question could also cover Lamarckism, and I wouldn't be surprised if many hold lamarickist views. It is often confused with the theory of evolution. And both are distinct from the phenomenon of evolution, i.e. the phenomenon that animals and plants evolve, rather than the explanation. I am not sure what you understand under evolution, but it seems to me like you want to have all the benefits of selection and mutation, combined with a young earth indeed, but that you shy away from the word "evolution". If you think that mutation and selection takes place, you believe in evolution, sorry to bring you this news. Call it young earth evolution. I guess you consider evolution to be a bad word, just like many Americans, but that doesn't mean that you don't accept the principles. It seems like you just don't like the word. But I move back to the moon page, since we had a discussion going there, and I just wanted to add to this discussion the tiny bit that quite a few people believe in an old earth, and that animals and plant evolve, combined with the view that humans were created. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:52, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:: When I say that the question is poorly worded, I don't mean that it's not clear in a grammatical sense, but that it is poorly worded in a survey sense. People compiling survey questions need to be very careful that they word the questions carefully, else the results may not be accurate. Putting two different concepts in the one question is a poor way to word a survey question. Also, many surveys ask for you to select the statement ''nearest'' your beliefs, and even though that doesn't appear to be the case here, many people answering the survey might agree with that answer because most of it does agree with their beliefs.
:: I understand evolution quite well, thank you, but it appears that you don't understand the creationist view very well, or even the aspects of evolution that are important in understanding the difference between it and creation. It's a bit rich accusing us of wanting the "benefits of [natural] selection" when it was the evolutionists who pinched it from us creationists! As for mutations, we acknowledge that they exist, because they have been observed, but they are not a "benefit", because they ''destroy'' information, whereas evolution proposes (without observational evidence) that mutations ''create'' information. Hence evolution proposes that all life has developed from the first life, which creationists deny. Evolution is not just "mutation and selection", but the whole "family tree" of living things. Creationists accept mutation and selection, but deny that these can and have produced that "family tree".
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 31 December 2007 (EST)
So, your only argument is that it is conceivable that a person might have given the wrong answer. And that is indeed conceivable. But you because it is conceivable doesn't meant that it had any significant effect. The statement "Over millions of year ..." is fairly obviously not YEC, what ever else can be misunderstood about it. And it covers a single concept, namely that over millions of years animal adapted to the environment. This would cover Lamarckism too, and I could even conceive that people who support neo-darwism would say that this statement is false. It sounds too Larmarckian. Anyway, this is just guessing, by me and by you, but I doubt that the sampling error for this statement with respect to YECers is significant, conceivable or not.

If you accept mutation and selection, you accept the basic assumptions of evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate concept, and that all life on earth is related to another is also a separate concept. It has been observed that all life on Earth is dna/rna based, but that in not a prerequisite for evolution to occur, nor for the laws of evolution to apply.

Given basic concepts of mutation and selection, the rest follows by itself, you just have to do the math. It follows that descendancy can be represented as a tree, as well as that the the average fitness will increase over time. But feel free to not believe any of this. No matter what you believe, once you observe mutation and selection, math will determine the game.

Your argument from information is kind of correct if you assume that the current collection of genotype is situated in and around a local optimum. Mutation disturbs the current genotypes in all directions evenly, and if you are in a local optimum, any direction will decrease fitness. Add selection to it and you will observe that the genotypes will move around the local optimum from generation to generation. This is well understood. The beaviour changes if the genotype isn't in the local optimum anymore, for example when the fitness criteria change. Mutation will disturb the genotype in all directions, as before, but selection will select from these directions the one that bring you closer to a local optimum. It is well known, that in a multidimensional space only a fraction of mutations points towards the optimum. But given a decent population size, the collection of genotypes will still with probability one converge towards a local optimum.

Do I hope that this convinces you? I don't need to, because once you accept mutation and selection, the rules of the games apply to you, like it or not. It really seems like you don't like the word "evolution", maybe because the Theory of Evolution in Biology assumes a single origin, or maybe because it works without divine intervention. And you are in good company. Even though quite a few Americans accept that animal adapt to the environment, a majority still believes in special creation for humans. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I've looked back at the start of the discussion of the survey question, and admit that the argument got a bit sidetracked. I ''questioned'' (but didn't reject) the figure you quoted, because the question it was based on ''appeared to be'' poorly worded. You (sort of) helped me to find the actual paper, and this then convinced me that it ''was'' poorly worded. You disputed this, so I supported my contention that it ''was'' poorly worded. And I don't back off from that. However, as to whether it would make any real difference? I can't say. Perhaps it wouldn't.
: "''If you accept mutation and selection, you accept the basic assumptions of evolution.''": That depends on what you consider to be the "basic assumptions". I most definitely do ''not'' consider that (the existence of) "mutation and selection" are adequate as "basic assumptions". For example, there's also the ''vital'' assumption that mutation and selection are ''capable of'' producing new genetic information (in the terms I'd put it) or new features, organs, abilities, etc. if you prefer.
::Yes, you do like the 'information' speak. But I did address it explicitly. If a genotype is in a local optimum, you are indeed correct, mutation will move in a direction away from that optimum. In your 'information' speak this means information is lost. But selection then choses the one with least loss of information, and the genotypes will hang around the optimum. Things change when the set of genotypes isn't at a local optimum. The set of genotypes will on average move towards a local optimum. In your 'information' speak this means that from the mutations the ones with the best information get selected. So, your mistake is that you only consider the case when the genotype is at an optimum, in 'information speak' when the information is perfect. You don't consider the case when the information is imperfect. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''...that all life on earth is related to another is also a separate concept.''": No it's not, at least not in a realistic sense. Put it this way. The creationist view is that all life on Earth is ''not'' related (except in the sense of having a common Designer), being separately created and that natural selection and mutations both exist. So can we label what you call "evolution" as "creation"?
::Even if the would be separate versions of life, the rules evolution would still apply. If we put marsupials, and placentals artificially onto an island, the rules of evolution will apply. It is just an observation that all life seems to be related. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''Given basic concepts of mutation and selection, the rest follows by itself, you just have to do the math.''": That's begging the question. Creationists argue that the rest ''doesn't'' follow.
::Yes, creationists struggle to accept it, but what can I say. Even if they choose to ignore the rules of mathematics, they nevertheless apply to them. You cannot opt out. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''Your argument from information is kind of correct ... [rest omitted]''": None of what you said in that paragraph even remotely addresses the generation of ''new'' genetic information, except perhaps to the extent of ''assuming'' that mutations have that ability.
::It addresses it explicitly. See above. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''I don't need to, because once you accept mutation and selection, the rules of the games apply to you, like it or not.''": Sorry, but I'm not playing your "game". Virtually your entire argument is one big assertion that evolution is inevitable from mutation and selection, something that I explicitly rejected in my previous post, and you've done nothing but ''assert'' it again, without any substantiation.
::Call it an assertion that the rules of mathematics apply to you, regardless of whether you like it or not. If someone tells you that he can win in the game of roulette, by picking the right numbers at the right time, does this have any effect on his prospects to win? I guess not. If you enter the game, you are stuck with the fact that the bank in the end always wins. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''the Theory of Evolution in Biology assumes a single origin'': Doesn't that contradict your previous claim that the idea "that all life on earth is related to another is ... a separate concept"? Now you're admitting that it's not separate, but part of evolution!
::No, I said on purpose 'in biology'. Which is a particular instance of evolution. And i talked about an assumption in Biology, based on observations in Biology. But it isn't essential for evolution to work. It is an assumoption based on the observation that all biological life seems to be related. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
: "''It really seems like you don't like the word "evolution", ...''": Instead of trying to figure my motives, how about rereading my last post and address the points I made in that, as those points refute that claim.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::No, you don't refute any claim. You admit that you accept the basic rules of evolution, but that you don't like certain aspects that follow from it for biological evolution, and certain aspects that are commonly mentioned under the banner of Theory of Evolution in biology, and that it should be therefore called "creationism". But its still evolution if it includes mutation and selection, even if you don't like the word. Theistic evolution, but evolution nevertheless.[[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::: You didn't answer my question: 'can we label what you call "evolution" as "creation"?'. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::Depends on how you define "creationism". But it gets awkward if someone claims that the principles of evolution don't work, and then propose an alternative that includes the principles of evolution that make animals adapt to their environment. What is missing from real creationism is that the different species were made once at the beginning, didn't change over time, unless the creator changed them. In real creationism there is no room for adaptation through mutation and selection. It is only fair to call your proposal young earth theistic evolutionism, because that is what it looks like. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Depends on how you define "creationism". ''": According to what I've said above. Now, with that clarification, please answer the question with a clear, simple, answer, such as "yes" or "no" (and if "no", then why not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::I told you already, what you support isn't real creationism. Real creationism assumes that the species are unchanged since the creation, unless the creator intervened. You assume that species change by mutation and selection. Probably not as only mechanism, but it is in there. And the assumptions "No change unless the creator intervenes" doesn't go together with "Change by mutation and selection". It should be called young earth theistic evolutionism, and not creationism. But if you want to call it "creationism" feel free to do so. Then we can talk about the controversy within creationism, that creationist do disagree what it actually means. 23:36, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: That what I was describing is not "real creationism" and that what you describe is, is absolute, utter, abject, nonsense. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so this conversation is going nowhere. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 2 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am now a bit confused about your comment, because I am not sure what you call nonsense: my statement, the "real creationism". But anyway, I guess I made my position clear. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:57, 2 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: The 'nonsense' is your definition of creationism, and therefore also your rejection of the 'definition' (such as it was) that I gave. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::That we disagree on how to define creationism, and how to apply the word, was knd of known since the beginning. I don't see any problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:57, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: I don't mean to abruptly interject into this discussion, but I would be remiss not to address some of the things Philip has misunderstood about mutation/genotypes. No, not all mutations are harmful, nor do they result in a ''loss'' of genetic information. This is a complete misconception, albeit common. In actually, most mutations are neutral - a minority are indeed harmful OR beneficial. Furthermore, a mutation that is harmful in one scenario may be rendered useful or neutral in another. This is the way organisms respond to their environment. Secondly, mutations absolutely can create new information. Anybody who denies this hasn't bothered to study science to its fullest - which is a shame because most of these arguments tend to go on with two or more parties who misunderstand the other viewpoints. On another forum (perhaps this one, I didn't scroll all the way up), I provided Philip with a list of observable mechanism by which new genetic information maybe created (e.g mutation, homologous recombination during gametogenesis, gene duplication, gene divergence/convergence, and transposition. If you were to heavily familiarize yourself with these concepts, you could see it easily. I'm not attempting to proselytize YECs or undermine creationism. I am, however, interested in making sure that the science isn't being misrepresented in such a way so that oneside may become "victorious" in an argument. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:41, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Very sensible comment. Welcome to the discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:43, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:I appreciate the warm welcome. Thank you Ed Poor. I just hope the discussion doesn't get heated. Hate when that happens. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:49, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Without rereading what I wrote above to see how I put it, I wasn't denying that there are neutral mutations, so we agree there. Neither was I denying that there are beneficial (but information-losing) mutations. So we agree there.
::"''Secondly, mutations absolutely can create new information.''": ''This'' is the point on which we disagree.
::"''Anybody who denies this hasn't bothered to study science to its fullest...''": Ad hominen arguments don't help though. And this is patently false.
::"''I provided Philip with a list of observable mechanism by which new genetic information maybe created ...''": And I most likely answered that list.
::"''e.g mutation''": Good argument. I say that mutations don't create new genetic information. You reply by giving mutations an example of how new genetic information is created! Yeah, that's really convincing!
::"''homologous recombination during gametogenesis, gene duplication, gene divergence/convergence, and transposition''": Just listing supposed ways is not evidence that new information is created. Gene duplication duplicates ''existing'' information, it is not ''new'' information.
:: In short, you've done ''nothing'' to demonstrate that the claim that mutations don't create new genetic information is incorrect beyond more mere assertions.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Can you define what you mean with 'information'. I'd say that a beneficial change in a sequence qualifies as increase in 'information'. Also, duplicating substrings increases information. You need at least one extra bit of information telling you how often a string occurs, and where. You might be able to represent it efficiently, but it is nevertheless an increase in information. As said, you might be able to represent it efficiently, but it is nevertheless an increase in information. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:52, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: See [[information]]. Sometimes a loss of information can be a benefit, such as beetles on a windy island losing the information for growing wings, so they don't get blown into the sea and drown. Beneficial mutation is not synonymous with information-producing mutation. If you have two copies of the string instead of one, you don't need an extra bit to tell you that you have two copies. Where is the extra bit in your paragraph telling me that you have the string twice? The only way I know it's there twice is because I can count two of them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::::First, if beneficial mutation can as well increase as well as decrease information, why do you care about the amount of information at all. All that matters is that it is beneficial.
:::::Second, the ability to decode information, i.e. to be able to count and distinguish symbols is essential for information processing. If my reply didn't contain the information that the substring was copied twice, how were you able to tell me that it did? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: I disagree that ''any'' mutation, beneficial or otherwise, can increase (create new) genetic information. But to go from the first living cell to you or me, there needs to be lots of genetic information for things that the first living cell doesn't have information for, such as eyes, skin, hair, bones, blood, lungs, and so many more things.
:::::: I was able to tell that you had the sentence twice because I saw that it was there twice, not because of "at least one extra bit of information telling" me so. That extra bit, which you said was necessary, was not there, so showing that it was ''not'' necessary. Actually, on further reflection, you might reply that "As said" was that extra bit. But even if this is so, "As said" was not what alerted me to it ("As said" does not necessarily mean that you are repeating information verbatim). I simply noticed that you had repeated yourself. I ''didn't'' really notice the "As said". So even if you argue that the extra bit was there, it was still not ''necessary''.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::The "as said" bit is fairly irrelevant. Your claim is that duplication doesn't add information. However, for some reason, you were able to tell that a substring was repeated twice. Where did you get that additional information from? Information that wouldn't have been there is I hadn't repeated the substring. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:57, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: My claim is that duplication does not ''generate new information''. Your duplicated sentence added nothing new, it merely repeated the ''same'' information. But you had previously claimed that in ''duplicating'' information, there must also be some ''new'' information: "''You need at least one extra bit of information telling you how often a string occurs, and where''". That supposedly-necessary extra bit wasn't needed in your post to tell me that ''existing'' information had been duplicated. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I asked you how you define information for a reason, but you chose to point me to a definition, rather than give me yours. Not sure if your read that definition, and even though it is a bit sketchy, the definition that you gave suggests how to measure [[information]]. For example by how many bits you need to store that information. And even after compression, you do need a bit more space to store a duplication. Your claim was that duplication doesn't add any new information. If it added nothing new, how were you able to tell that there was a duplication? Where was the information, if not in my reply? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:57, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: How do you know that's not ''my'' definition? I presume that you don't want one that I simply made up, but one that I accept and use. That article was (largely) written by me. Why do you think I pointed to that article? That ''is'' "my" definition.
:::::::::: The bit about measuring it in terms of the number of bits was simply a measure of one aspect or level of information, the statistical level. But if you read the entire article, you will see that this level ignores the ''meaning'' of the information, whereas the definition of information in the introduction says that information has ''meaning''. But if you wanted to know about ''measuring'' it, then the best place to look would be the section titled "Measuring information"!
:::::::::: "''Where was the information, if not in my reply?''": What "information", precisely? The duplication was not ''new'' information. I'm now figuring that you are trying to argue that your post conveyed the "information" that you had duplicated the sentence. Perhaps this is so, but it's irrelevant to what we are discussing. If an encyclopedia of places has ''information'' about, say, 1000 different places, and a printing mistake in the second edition results in the article on London being printed twice, then there is no new ''information'' in the second edition that was not in the first. Sure, somebody can say to a prospective purchaser, "I have some ''information'' about that second edition: They duplicated the London entry", but that is not ''information'' as far as the purpose of the encyclopedia is concerned. The same applies to genetic information. Duplication of genes does not add instructions for building ears, toes, marrow, livers, sweat glands, teeth, or a myriad of other things. If you want to call the fact that there has been a duplication of genes "information", it doesn't help explain where the information for fingernails, ribs, and voice boxes comes from.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 2 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Maybe that's because you've completely oversimplified what a gene is. There is no fingernail, rib, voicebox, or tooth gene. You're describing phenotypes that require the combined effect of tons of genetic information utilized during embryogenesis and development of an organism, coupled with environmental effects - not to mention the differential regulation of these genes between organisms. Why is the yeast genome consist of only 6000 genes? Why does a bacterium have one circular chromosome? Where does the increased complexity come from? When genetic information is duplicated, the genome becomes larger, adds complexity, and through mutation allows the formation of paralogous elements. Genes can then diverge, become altered, create families with multiple isoforms etc..etc..[[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:33, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Clearly I've simplified, because genes are quite complex, but I don't believe that I've ''over''simplified. I'm sure that there's not ''individual'' genes for each of those things, but each of those would be specified in the genes (DNA). Where does the increased complexity come from? Well, that's the question, isn't it? When the genetic information is duplicated, the genome becomes larger, but ''it doesn't add any new information''. Mutations ''do not add information'' (i.e. stuff with ''meaning''). This is ''an observational fact''. The rest of your post is just the story; restating it does not make it so. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::Before we dive into details such as the duplication of sequences on the human chromosome 16, I prefer Philip to get the nature of information, and the nature of his general claims. If duplication wouldn't increase information, as he claims, then he would not be able to tell that anything was duplicated. It is as simple as that. He wouldn't be able to say "You duplicated the substring", if that information would not be there. It might not be useful information, it might not be much information, but it is information. And thus his general claim has been disproven.
:::::::::::::Back to your definition. It lists five levels on which information can increase, and my duplication adds information on each of them. First, it adds bits. Secondly, it is syntactical correct, and the parse tree will become bigger after duplication. And for the rest, semantically, pragmatically, and apobeticly it did succeed also to convey additional information. It was meant as a challenge to Philip's claim that duplication doesn't add information, and he immediately understood it as such. It conveyed its intended meaning, got him to act in response, and thus achieved its purpose. Philip got the message that I was challenging him on this point. So, sorry, simply by duplicating a substring, I did convey information, on each level of the definition; information that would not be there, if I hadn't duplicated it. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:33, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: "''If duplication wouldn't increase information, as he claims, then he would not be able to tell that anything was duplicated.''": Why not? Go back to the example of an encyclopedia of places, and the duplicated page for London. Anybody could tell that the article has been duplicated, but it contains no ''new'' information.
:::::::::::::: If nothing else, the only reason that you satisfied the highest level of information (apobetics) is because the duplication was done with a ''purpose'', which is only possible because ''you'', an ''intelligent being'', deliberately did it. This does not apply in the case of a random genetic duplication.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::We were discussing if duplication can add information. And not randomness. But thanks for admitting that my duplication added information even on the highest level. I guess this disproves you claim that duplication cannot add information.
:::::::::::::And thanks for observing that random changes cannot have and external purpose. Exactly. And that is why "information" as you use it doesn't apply to dna. Dna doesn't have semantics by itself. You might argue about pragmatics, and if doesn't have "apobetics", a teleological purpose. So, indeed, that why it it is confusing to talk about "information" in the context of genetics. See, your trick is to apply the word "information" with its lower level definitions to dna, and then switch to the full definition that you gave to sneak in your "purpose". And we can now see why that doesn't work. To summarize: You are wrong on two accounts: First, duplication adds information, and second, information in it full definition doesn't apply to dna in the first place. But we discuss this again somewhere below on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:55, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: We were discussing if duplication can add ''new'' information. But even so, I did not admit that duplication added information.
:::::::::::::: If I'm following you, you have the argument back to front. Random changes cannot have purpose, so random changes to DNA cannot be information. I think that's what you are saying, and I agree. But DNA ''is'' information. So here is the logic:
::::::::::::::* Random changes don't produce information
::::::::::::::* DNA is information.
::::::::::::::* Therefore, the DNA didn't come about by random changes.
:::::::::::::: You, on the other hand, are using this logic:
::::::::::::::* Random changes don't produce information.
::::::::::::::* The DNA came about by random changes.
::::::::::::::* Therefore, the DNA is not information.
::::::::::::::I haven't read ahead yet to see what further you might say on this.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:::Presupposing that someone hasn't done their homework adequately enough isn't an ad hominem attack. That's pure rubbish. It simply means that the individual doesn't understand the science to a level sufficient enough to debunk/argue against it. In other words, their arguments become tenuous. But this ain't no crime. Ignorance on a subject isn't an insult, in fact, it can be informative if the person seeks to broaden their understanding. I do it all the time. Patently false? Really? I don't know about you, but I'm loathe to listen to a person less versed in science (e.g a layman) than a pundit who has immersed him or herself in a field of study. I reiterate. Saying that mutations cannot create new information is simply scientifically inaccurate. Secondly, no, you did not answer that list - you simply dismissed it as evolutionary rhetoric without delving deeper into any of the examples. Thirdly, sorry, but you also seem to have a limited understanding of gene duplication (no, that's not ad hominem, you're taking the name at face value). Gene duplications allow for the duplicated gene to undergo heavy mutation without deleterious effects (yep, mutation - insertion, deletion, transversion, transition of nucleotides) to create a new protein or RNA product (Paralogs). By the by, the list wasn't of "supposed ways", they ARE ways - meaning they occur regularly and have been observed. Does an offspring share an identical genome with their parents? Absolutely not. How exactly would you explain different alleles (versions of the same gene) at a chromosomal locus? Homologous recombination of sister chromatids - that's how. What about a ''mutation'' that causes a gene to encode an alternatively spliced protein with a novel function never seen before? It changes the location, regulation, or the adopted 3D structure. I'm sorry Philip, but I must insist that it is YOU who has not verily demonstrated how mutations can NOT create new genetic information. The burden of proof rests on the skeptic, especially in special circumstances where the individual is attempting to debunk scientific consensus. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:58, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: An ad hominem argument is one in which you make a point about the person rather than the argument. That is what you did. Perhaps you are confusing it with an ''abusive ad hominem'' argument, in which you say something nasty about the person. Perhaps you were not doing ''that'', but that's not what I accused you of doing.
:::: "''Patently false? Really? I don't know about you, but I'm loathe to listen to a person less versed in science (e.g a layman) than a pundit who has immersed him or herself in a field of study.''": Yes, patently false, because this point is not made just by me (a layman), but people who are scientists.
:::: "''I reiterate. Saying that mutations cannot create new information is simply scientifically inaccurate.''": Reiteration does not make it so.
:::: "''...you simply dismissed it as evolutionary rhetoric without delving deeper into any of the examples''": So you've now found the conversation? Can you point me to it? But perhaps you are correct, because if all you did was list them with no substantiation, that's about all it is.
:::: "''Gene duplications allow for the duplicated gene to undergo heavy mutation without deleterious effects (yep, mutation - insertion, deletion, transversion, transition of nucleotides) to create a new protein or RNA product (Paralogs).''": Yes, gene duplication allows for the duplicated gene to undergo mutation, but if there's new genetic information generated, it was the subsequent mutations that did it, not the duplication. As for the rest (the bit about it producing a new protein or RNA product), it is still nothing more than assertion. Can you give me a specific example of an observation of brand new genetic information being generated?
:::: "''By the by, the list wasn't of "supposed ways", they ARE ways - meaning they occur regularly and have been observed.''": Have been observed ''generating brand-new genetic [[information]]? Then you should be able to cite some examples, shouldn't you?
:::: "''Does an offspring share an identical genome with their parents?''": No, but there's no new information, so this is a red herring.
:::: "''The burden of proof rests on the skeptic, especially in special circumstances where the individual is attempting to debunk scientific consensus.''": The burden of proof is on the person claiming that something ''is'' rather than something ''isn't''. I can't readily show you that something ''isn't'' the case, but you should be quite readily able to show me that something ''is'' the case, simply by giving me some examples. Richard Dawkins was once asked to cite an example of the generation of new genetic information, and was unable to do so.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 2 January 2008 (EST)

==Evidence in Bacteria==

Evolution has actually been witnessed within a human lifetime. Bacteria, as they procreate very quickly (I think the fastest is a new generation every 20 mins)they go through evolutionary processes much faster than other lifeforms on earth. I am sure all of you are aware of the new MRSA bacteria which is resistant to antibiotics. This bacteria seemed to have sprung up from nowehere and very rapidly all over the globe. How else could you explain this without using evolution? It seems to me that it is obvious that this bacteria (remembering that it is essentially the same bacteria only antibiotic resistant) has evolved to be resistant to our drugs. Following on from that, if non resistant bacteria died out to be replaced by resistant bacteria (as Survival of the Fittest would suggest) would evolution skeptics rethink their posistion?
[[MetcalfeM]]
:: The bacteria are still bacteria, aren't they? Yet evolution is supposed to change living things into quite different living things (e.g. dinosaurs into birds). Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated that the resistance to antibiotics is due to ''new genetic information''. All such resistances have been already existing in a subset of the population, have been transferred from other bacteria, or have been due to a mutation which ''decreases'' genetic information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:What you describe is absolutely true, and everyone here knows that I agree with you. However, what you have described is a form of microevolution. The resistant bacteria either acquired a mutation that rendered it resistant, or there was a transfer of plasmid DNA from another bacterium, or perhaps a bacteriophage infected the strain and altered its genome. In other words, it was a genetic transformation. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:56, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Now, stop me if I am wrong here but microevolution effects populations on a small scale. Say, within a single population that shares a gene pool. An analogy could be a population of birds that inhabit a section of forest. Some sort of environmental factor such as Wisdom89 pointed out above produces a microevolution in this population of birds but is not a large scale of macroevolution. While this is correct in every sense there is something which I find interesting. MRSA is not the only super bug out there and wasn't the first. While this maybe microevolution, the scale is certainly very large and involves several different types of bacteria. MRSA was first spotted in the UK and the strain was swiftly located in hospitals around the world. What is interesting is this MRSA was originally found in hospitals, not so much throughout the community, and mainly in first world hospitals also. A bacterium would find environments in first world hospitals fairly standardized, wherever in the world, and the same antibiotics have been used. All of sudden in countries everywhere and within a short period of time were experiencing cases of MRSA. This bug is very hard to transmit (as in a human to human contagion) and would certainly be difficult for MRSA to have a chain of infection running from the UK outwards so quickly. It looks like the species "turned on" its resistance worldwide as the species was facing the same antibiotics and environmental pressures worldwide. That is a large scale evolutionary change. [[MetcalfeM]]
:You should add that without sexual reproduction, it becomes a bit more difficult to define a species, because it is typically defined as a population that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Unicellular organisms reproduce by cell division, and you'll need to look at other criteria based on for example morphology, or genetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Incidentally, this is also a problem with classifying creatures known only from fossils. I believe that it's rather difficult for a fossil to mate with another fossil. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::Especially, if those fossils are from species that don't mate in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:33, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== What if..? ==

I am curious about something. Personally I am an avid believer in evolution however I am aware thats its not for everyone. However what I am wondering is that if, through future scientific study and advances, evolution was proven as fact, how would creationists and disbelievers in evolution feel? What would your next step be? I know personally if it was shown without a doubt that evolution was wrong I would sure have egg on my face. [[MetcalfeM]]

:More than likely, as it usually is with science, a new theory will be formulated as more evidence is brought to light. Relativity replaced Newtons in our lifetime. Darwins's Natural Selection was replaced/revised with the Modern Evolutioary Synthesis. Once a theory is falsified or an aspect doesn't harmonize with the data, it will be replaced completely or reshaped to fit the new evidence. That's the beauty of Scienctific Theory - it's mutable and falsifiable and not subject to stagnation. The goal of creationism or evolution is certainly not to throw egg on the other's face. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:46, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Goo-to-you evolution ''cannot'' be proven as fact. This is because we are talking about the evolutionary "family tree" that all living things descended from the first living thing, rather than being separately created. That is, we are talking about ''history'', not ''observable, empirical, measurable, testable'' science. So if scientists manages to demonstrate that scales could easily be transformed into feathers (which would be a big boost to the evolutionary myth), it would still not ''prove'' that that's what actually happened 65-odd million years ago. Both evolution and creation will therefore remain as competing ''histories'' for different worldviews: creation for the Christian (and some other) worldview, and evolution for the atheistic (and some other) worldview. The relative popularities will likely change, but one can never be ''proved'' in a scientific sense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)

::This kinda sounds like one of those classic misapprehensions that some Creationists have regarding Evolution. 1.) Biological evolution is not linear from bacteria to humans (although I think you already knew that, but, the "Goo-to-you" label is such a misnomer), and 2.) You are implying that Evolution has somehow stopped, as though it was some kind of archaic biological process that no longer exists. The fact is that Evolution is still occurring today and will continue to do so, so long as life exists on this planet. That is what allows it to be falsifiable, observable and empirical. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a Scientific Theory espoused by the scientific community. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:25, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::: In what way are you using "linear"? I know that it's not necessarily a ''straight'' line, and I know that there are branches off the line, but there ''is'' (supposedly) a line from bacteria (or something similar) to humans, so "goo-to-you" evolution is an accurate description. No, I'm not proposing that it has stopped, although I can understand why you say that. So yes, technically you are correct, that we should be able to observe it in the present, but it is supposed to occur so slowly (according to some versions) that we haven't been observing it long enough to see it happening. And even if we argue that there's been enough time to see ''something'', the point is that we ''haven't'' seen any evidence of goo-to-you evolution. That is, we've seen mutations, and we've seen natural selection, but goo-to-you evolution requires the addition of copious amounts of new genetic information (for wings, arms, and legs, for example) and we haven't seen those sorts of changes at all. According to the theory, 99.9999% (approximately) of evolution that has occurred so far has already occurred, so calling it ''history'' is entirely accurate, even allowing for that 0.0001% that might be in the present rather than the past. So that ''history'' is not falsifiable, thus not truly scientific. The only part that ''is'' falsifiable (that is truly evolution and not also part of the creation model) has not actually been observed, despite many searches, which suggests that the idea is ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:43, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Of course we are not in the business of egging each other, that died out when I was 10, however my point was this. I dont believe in creation and would argue it at length however if I was wrong and there was irrefutable (spelling?) proof of creation I would certainly have to have a look at my belief system. But if there was total proof of evolution and, larger, an old earth what would the ramifications be for those syops, Aschlafly and the like, and their view of the world. That is my question. How would affect those who believe in Young Earth Creationism and the like. What changes would be made to their beliefs? [[MetcalfeM]]

:: The same applies for the age of the Earth. It is a matter of ''history'', not empirical science, so can never be ''proved'' one way or the other, although each side can put forward evidence that is more consistent with their point of view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: I have no preconceived notions, and believed evolution and old earth most of my life. However, I then spent several years looking into the facts, asking questions of evolutionists, debating issues, etc. I found that the evidence is against the theories. I also found that most of the promoters of evolution believe it ''must have occurred'' and many will even admit that in candid moments. [[Atheists]], for example, have no other theory. No amount of new evidence is going to change someone's view if they insist something ''must have'' occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 5 January 2008 (EST)
::There is still Lamarickism, although that has been mostly debunked. But is still a popular misconception. And there are even atheist creationists. I went once to a talk on creationism given by an atheist medical doctor. He gave the same talk on irreducible complexity, Behe, and Dembski that you would expect from any creationist. And he also stressed that the identity of the designer was unknown and left open on purpose, but personally he believed that the creators were aliens. I guess this proves Andy's point that people go to great length to mold a theory to fit their preconceptions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::: An [[atheistic]] creationist??? He shouldn't just be giving a talk, he should be traveling with the circus. Over 90% of [[atheists]] not only believe in [[evolution]], but they believe that evolution ''must have occurred'' regardless of the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 5 January 2008 (EST)
::::Thanks for providing the 90% figure. It would be nice to have a reference for it, since good data is difficult to find. Not sure if he should go to a circus. Admitted, it is a rather unusual combination, atheism and creationism, but even Behe states that an alien creator is a possibility [http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html]. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:17, 6 January 2008 (EST)

::::: User:Order, you deny the obvious and embrace the implausible. Don't expect references for obvious and indisputable statements of fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 6 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: There is nothing stopping an individual from believing that the "creator" was a highly advanced civilization (or some other entity - I thought that was the basis for ID, or are proponents of said concept parochial liars?). It would still be a form of Creationism, a rather rare and stupid one, but it would certainly fall under the heading. If said individual also was an atheist, then there you have it. It's a hypothetical, just saying. About the whole statistics thing, 90% might be right, but all numbers should be backed up with evidence. Also, tangentially (to this subject) it is wholly possible to be an evolutionist and a devout Christian. Harmonizing the beliefs, IMHO, is quite easy to do. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:38, 6 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::Wisdom89, I don't agree that evolution and Christianity can be easily harmonized. If evolution is true, then the Genesis account of creation is not literal. Since the fall of man is part of that Genesis account, it follows that it is also not literal. If man never fell, there was no point to Jesus' coming to earth and death on the cross, and Christianity is the world's biggest lie. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 09:06, 8 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::This is a reiteration of a post I made below - "Well, that's only a problem if you decide to read the bible in a literal manner, a book, mind you, which was written by men, fallible men, and the text, originally in Greek, translated into thousands of languages and passed down for thousands of years. If you have a problem harmonizing Evolution with your religious beliefs, then all I can say is, that's a shame. I know quite a few people who can, and most of them are scientists. Wisdom89 17:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)" The point is this - I have absolutely no problem believing in Evolution and God. I was raised Catholic, attended weekly mass, was baptized, received communion, and confirmed as a child. Then I was exposed to other teachings, things that appeared contradictory to what was taught in the Bible - however, I didn't have a spiritual meltdown. I realized what was most important was the teachings, not the story. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: There's many errors and unsubstantiated assumptions in that post. When discussing an issue with someone, you need to start with common ground, not start with assumptions that the other side doesn't accept. You can ''argue'' points that they don't accept, but not ''start'' with them. Only the New Testament was written in Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Our modern English translations have been made directly from the Hebrew and Greek, not via "thousands of languages". (Sure, it has been translated from Hebrew and Greek ''into'' thousands of languages, but that's something totally different and irrelevant here.) The Bible claims to be inspired (ultimately written) by God (using humans, similar to a modern author using a "ghost writer"), so is infallible. Yes, I've simply asserted that rather than proved that, but that is exactly what you did when claiming that it was written by fallible men. Yes, it has been passed down for a few thousand years, but we know that the transmission of the text over that time was done very accurately, so that is not an issue.
::::::::: You might know many people who claim to believe both evolution and the Bible, but it simply ''cannot'' be done without doing damage to one or the other, usually the Bible. For example, how do you harmonise the biblical claim that the Earth was created before the Sun with the evolutionary view that says the opposite, without resorting to claiming that the Bible doesn't ''really'' say that. That's not harmonisation. That's distortion. (And that's just one of scores of examples, and not even the most serious discrepancy.)
:::::::::: I "harmonize" the claim by realizing that the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally. You may feel otherwise, and that's perfectly fine with me. Honest. Children are impressionable, we (friends and siblings) didn't question anything said or preached during mass because 1.Church was viewed as a Mandatory Sunday chore, and 2.)We weren't exposed to anything else. It wasn't until I got a little older did I start to notice the discrepancies - The existence of the dinosaurs for instance (which btw, a priest kindly explained to me (at the age of 11) that the six day creation story doesn't necessarily claim to be the standard 24 hour days we are familiar with - a simple and very common "distortion" as you call it). I was raised a certain way, then inundated myself with science, so I was able to unite the two ideas and retain my faith. I don't find it very congenial of you to undermine that. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:16, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Is it possible to "realise" something that isn't the case? Because it ''was'' meant to be taken literally. That's not just what I "feel". That's is the view of the experts: see the quote from James Barr [[Creation Week#Length of the days|here]].
::::::::::: How is the existence of Dinosaurs a "discrepancy"? The Bible doesn't say that they didn't exist. You seem to be finding "discrepancies" where none exist.
::::::::::: Your priest was wrong. The Bible ''defines'' it's use of the word "day": Each day had an evening and a morning, for one thing. Secondly, the Hebrew language does not allow for other than 24-hour days in that context. See the section of the article linked above.
::::::::::: I make no apologies for "undermining" error. In fact I'm following biblical principle:
{{Bible quote|We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.|book=2_Corinthians|chap=10|verses=5}}
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You might have no problem believing in both evolution and God, but it would not be the God of the Bible, Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man. That's not the God of the Bible, Who, for example, declared everything in his perfect creation to be "very good", and declared death to be an enemy.
:::::::::: Yikes, MY God? This is quite an abrasive way to phrase things. If you insist on saying that, then I'll just respond in kind, stating "your God" sent the great flood and killed everyone on Earth except Noah and his family with two of each animal on earth (That's one enormous ship). Your God wreaked havoc on Egypt by unleashing the ten plagues, killing the innocent first born in the process. Your God helped free the Israelites, but killed the pursuing Egyptians after parting the Red Sea. Yes, yes, they were "bad men", but still. Your God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (yes, I know, the sinful cities of immorality) even after Abraham pleaded with him, and turned Lot's Wife into a pillar of salt. Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity. Do you see what I'm getting at? Please, please don't presume to tell me what "my" or "your" God does. I am a Christian too, and I find it disrespectful. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:16, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yep "my" God sent the flood (as recorded in the Bible), killing all on Earth except those on the ark (as recorded in the Bible) (the size is recorded in the Bible too, by the way. It ''was'' big.) My God killed the first-born (all have sinned, so none are truly "innocent") (as recorded in the Bible). My God freed the Israelites (as recorded in the Bible), killing the pursuing Egyptians (as recorded in the Bible). My God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (as recorded in the Bible), and yes they were sinful (as recorded in the Bible). (God agreed to Abraham's pleading, but the cities didn't meet Abraham's criterion.) My God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for disobedience (as recorded in the Bible). How is any of this not the work of a just God? The Bible says that God can't stand sin, which was introduced by man's disobedience, and all these events that you describe are the punishment of sin. Your god took billions of years involving much death and suffering as a necessary part of creating man, without being able to blame the suffering on sin. This is ''contrary'' to what is recorded in the Bible. See the difference? Why shouldn't I tell you what my God does, if it's what's recorded in the Bible. As for what your god did, well, ''you'' told me that! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Your admission that evolution appeared to be contrary to the Bible gives the game away, and the only way you reconciled the two was to change what you thought the Bible was saying. Why didn't you, for example, conclude that the millions of years of evolution are not literal? Why was it that you accepted the evolutionary timescale produced by fallible men who were not there to see it happen (there's no dispute over that point) over the biblical timescale related by the infallible God who was there to see it happen (He caused it), and is quite capable of communicating that to us? And how can the "teaching" of a story be valid if the story itself is false?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: I concluded that the Bible was not literal because of the mountains of scientific evidence that support Evolution, which is a branch of biology that I have studied intently for the last 10 years during my undergraduate and graduate career. Mind you, it is not my major though, just wanted that to be clear. In my eyes, evolution does not oppose religion. Anyway, this is not a slight at the Holy Book, it's merely a matter of logic (to me at least). Do I take a book at face value and dismiss empiricism, or do I conduct my own research into the matter and come to a solid conclusion? I chose the latter. That's all. As I mentioned already, I still believe in God and intend to raise my children Catholic as I was. At some point, I am sure they will make their own decisions regarding what exactly to believe - and whatever it is, I'll respect that. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:16, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: You concluded that the Bible was not literal because of something outside the Bible, and that something was an idea that was designed to replace God. Saying that evolution does not oppose religion is missing the point. It doesn't oppose ''some'' religions, such as atheism, but it does oppose ''the Bible'', which clearly says, for example, that God created the word in six days. Or do you think that the Ten Commandments were not literal also?
::::::::::: The problem with your argument is that evolution is ''not'' empiricism. Nobody has ever seen a fish change into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile, a reptile into a bird, or etc. This is the atheists' origin myth, not science. The parts of the idea that ''are'' empirical are consistent with the biblical account. You say that you did your own research. Fair enough. But how much (please answer this) did you research the arguments of the creationists? How many YEC books and magazines did you read? Or was your research all one-sided?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Normally, I leave theology alone but I believe it should be pointed out that we are assuming that the bible is infallible. We have no honest proof that it is or that it is not, we take its word for the most part leading to many different interpretations. We know that science is fallible and therefore make changes to the assumptions as new data is presented. In the case of using the bible as the authority we run into problems when the data conflicts with what is presented in the bible. James Hutton is a prime example of what happens when the data and the bible do not equalize. That is the issue between science and religion, it is assumed that religion knows all while science is discovering. This is key in the fact that science can be wrong, admit it and move on, while a religion that has been shown to be wrong will crumble due to people losing faith. Hence the reasons why so many people will deny and misdirect when question often occur about their religion when they do not have the answers. Personally I harmonize my faith and science by keeping in mind that the bible was written almost two thousand years ago and has been translated several times leading to so many different denominations of Christianity that most people are not truly certain as to what is come. As such I keep in mind that science is about the exploration of what was created, through techniques and theories we better understand the world around us. To inhibit exploration and discovery is folly on man's part due to the assumption that man knows it all and needs not learn or discover more...--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:09, 16 January 2008 (EST)
: Yes, that the Bible is infallible is an assumption so far in this discussion. But it's an idea that has been well-supported in other places. But it does not follow that this leads to many different interpretations. If anything, assuming that it is ''not'' infallible would lead to that, as it allows more leeway to reject parts that we don't like.
: Science is supposed to be self-modifying, and to a fair extent is, but it is also based on assumptions that are sometimes not allowed to be challenged. One is the assumption of naturalism. So science is no different in that regard.
: "''In the case of using the bible as the authority we run into problems '''when''' the data conflicts with what is presented in the bible.''" (my emphasis): That claim has an unstated assumption that this will actually happen. If the Bible ''is'' the infallible Word of God, then this will never happen, or if it does, it's because we've misread the data. So you are not arguing from evidence or logic there, but from anti-biblical assumption.
: "''James Hutton is a prime example of what happens when the data and the bible do not equalize.''": No, in Hutton's case it was not the data and the Bible that disagreed, but his ''assumption'' (of uniformitarianism) and the Bible that disagreed. In effect, he simply ''declared'' the biblical account to be wrong.
: "''That is the issue between science and religion, it is assumed that religion knows all while science is discovering.''": Two problems there. One, nobody claims that religion knows ''all''. Creationists propose that the Bible gives an accurate historical framework, but that there is still plenty to learn; still plenty of flesh to put on the bones. Second, this is still not an issue ''unless'' your ''assumption'' that the Bible is not always correct is true.
: "''This is key in the fact that science can be wrong, admit it and move on, while a religion that has been shown to be wrong will crumble due to people losing faith.''": Again, you ''assume'' that the Bible will be shown to be wrong. Christianity is based firmly on ''evidence''. Paul said that if the resurrection didn't happen, it's all pointless. You seem to be arguing that the religion should survive even if it's shown to be wrong. That's not what Christianity teaches. If Christianity or the Bible is wrong, Christianity should die. But it hasn't been shown to be wrong, and by faith (which is trust based on evidence) I believe that it can't be, because it is correct.
: "''Personally I harmonize my faith and science by keeping in mind that the bible was written almost two thousand years ago and has been translated several times leading to so many different denominations of Christianity that most people are not truly certain as to what is come.''": As I've responded to a separate post above, it's not possible to harmonise the Bible and evolution without doing damage to one. The different denominations are not (for the most part at least) due to different translations.
: "''To inhibit exploration and discovery is folly on man's part due to the assumption that man knows it all and needs not learn or discover more...''". And nobody wants to inhibit research, but keep in mind that scientific research only [[natural science#beginnings|came about because of a Christian worldview]], and the current atheistic naturalism worldview is holding back science and potentially killing it. (An example of holding back science is not investigating some body organs and so-called 'junk DNA' on the assumption that they were evolutionary leftovers. It will potentially kill it because it denies the foundational assumptions on which it is based, that God created an ordered universe capable of being studied, and gave us minds capable of study. Atheistic teaching is that it's all a giant cosmic accident so that the obvious order is an illusion and our minds are simply chemical processes that give us no choice on what to think.)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::I have heard Christopher Hitchens making the same argument - that if both evolution is true and that God exists, then He allowed humans to suffer horribly for tens of thousand of years before the advent of civilisation (and after of course). Therefore evolution and Abrahamic deism cannot co-exist. I'm not sure that argument holds water, to be honest. That claim assumes that God shouldn't allow suffering and yet He does allow it as is witnessed on the news everyday. The theological question should be why does God allow suffering? Whether it's been going on for 6,000 years or 160,000 years in irrelevant, IMHO. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: No, it does not assume that God would not ''allow'' suffering. The difference is whether the death and suffering were part of God's "very good" creation, or were subsequent to the [[fall of man|Fall]]. God "allowed" death and suffering after the fall, because we decided to go our own way instead of doing what God said, but prior to that, there was no death nor suffering. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Which is why, deep down, many want evolution to be true, because one way or another, it means that they don't have to answer to their Creator. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:::::I am not sure what I am supposed to be denying, but that there exist creationists that believe that the creator is an alien, is pretty much an established fact. And that Behe explicitly allows for the creator to be an alien is also a fact. I can report on their opinions without agreeing with them. But even if I disagree with them, they still believe what they believe: some that the creator could be an alien, and others that he actually is an alien. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I have heard before of atheistic creationists, but would not have been able to name one. They would be extremely rare beasts. It also depends on what one means by "creationist". Quite a few (although still a small minority, probably) do believe that aliens seeded life here on Earth, and it then evolved from that point. So do you call them creationists or evolutionists? I would call them evolutionists. And of course, even if you believe that aliens ''created'' living things here on Earth, then who created the aliens? Or did they evolve? The point is, proposing that aliens did it only removes the ultimate cause one step further, and that further step is beyond our investigation. Ultimately you have to believe (against all observation, I might add) that everything created itself and life came from non-life for no reason, or you have to believe in a supernatural creator.

Although some of the ID people are creationists, I believe that some of them are undecided on a creator, and are simply going where the evidence leads.

Wisdom89, it is ''not'' easy to harmonise belief in the Bible with evolution, without discarding quite a bit of one of the views (usually the Bible, unfortunately). The order of the appearance of thing (earth vs. sun, plants vs. sea life, etc.) is quite different, the time scale (6 days vs. billions of years) is so different as to be ludicrous, and theologically, the Bible has death being a result of man's sin, not something that was necessary to produce man.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)

:Well, that's only a problem if you decide to read the bible in a literal manner, a book, mind you, which was written by men, fallible men, and the text, originally in Greek, translated into thousands of languages and passed down for thousands of years. If you have a problem harmonizing Evolution with your religious beliefs, then all I can say is, that's a shame. I know quite a few people who can, and most of them are scientists. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::: I've answered this where you repeated it above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::So, Wisdom89, what you're saying is that we should reject the Creation as written in the Bible, and accept the theory of evolution as fact, even though it was written by men, fallible men... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:::I am absolutely NOT telling ANYONE what they should and should not believe. I am speaking about myself only, and somewhat anecdotally. As I said, there is an obvious conflict if a person chooses to take the Bible verbatim. If they do not, then it's easier to unite the two ideas. I do not read the Bible in a literal manner. If you don't accept Evolution, that is your belief, that is your choice. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)

::::Yes, it is my choice to accept the Bible's version of events as opposed to evolution, for several reasons:
:::::1. I don't accept something by anyone who emphatically states evolution is a fact when they themselves state "I don't know" when asked how it occurs.
:::::2. If evolution os a fact, then prove it via the [[Scientific Method]]. In short, show me a one-toed horse evolved from a four-toed horse by replicating the hypothesis in the lab; don't insult mine or anyone else's intellegence by pointing to a couple of skeletons and "saying" it happened. In legal-speak that would be called hearsay.
:::::3. People here and elsewhere have contantly stated the the Bible is in error by using the classic line "it was written by fallible men". Well, science is written by fallible men as well, and these same fallible men came up with Piltdown man; these same fallible men have "said" the ceolacanth was extinct when it wasn't; these same fallible men say that evolution is faslifiable like any other science, but when shown the evidence that it is false, they act like it's a lie.
:::::4. Current events right now are fulfilling Biblical prophecies written more than two thousand years ago; if the Bible is "just a book", as you said, then this wouldn't be happening. Period.
::::Like you said, you made a choice, and that one is a belief in evolution. I made the choice of the Bible, in part because the events recorded in it fit with the historical, archaeological, and prophetic records. You can believe what you want to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:47, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Karajou, just to clarify:
:1. Would you prefer a physician who would say "I don't know for sure" compared to the physician who said they always knew?
:2. There are many examples of mutation occurring in the lab for higher animals but not to the point of causing large phenotype changes, this would take time for higher level organisms (you basically ask for reproduction of something that has taken tens of thousands of years to occur). However there is proof of the creation of highly specific multi protein structures that have evolved from lesser proteins to provide a greater advantage to the organism. These observations have been documented and were found in lower life forms after almost 20 years of study. My post about HIV1 is a prime example.
:3. Your point is well taken, and to further support it we will continue to find charlatans and untruths as this is what science inadvertently does during its course of discovery. To add to this comment the same can be applied to religion, charlatans and people who take advantage of others, but a few bad apples do not make the whole rotten. As is the case of science and religion, it is the sum of the contributions.
:4. I would disagree with your assessment. I am well read on the bible and the same could be said for WWII and for several other eras where civilization was tense due to internal strife. I would question the passage in revelations about Jesus returning on a white horse Rev 19:15. and leading the armies of heaven on white horses. Would you go into battle on a horse this day and age? Since it is not rational to take this literally we often see this as a metaphorical passage in the bible. As such it leads to various interpretations therefore allowing for almost any condition where the populous is unsatisfied to meet the conditions for the rapture. --[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:: I might leave Karajou to answer most of them, but on that last one, the ''language'' of Revelation is clearly apocalyptic, whereas the ''language'' of Genesis is clearly narrative. You're comparing chalk and cheese. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Very good observation but just to question, where in the bible does it state that Revelation is not to be take literally compared to the rest of the bible? I have not discovered a passage to indicate this, as such if I were to take the bible as the literal word of god (and all of the claims within) then I have to take revelation as literal as well. Using logic one would conclude that the chapters of the bible are conjunctions (absolute truths, in that there is no indicator that the chapters are false) as such to claim that part of the bible is to be taken literally without a disjunction occurring somewhere in the bible makes it a logical fallacy. What I ask is where and what is the disjunction?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:08, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Able, in actuality, I'm fairly certain that there is a preface (maybe from John) that the book of Revelations is NOT to be taken word for word. Someone with more knowledge of the Bible will have to corroborate that. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:29, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::I will look through my bible tonight to see. I have a couple of versions to go through, NIV, KJV. I am interested since this has been an issue for me.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 17:23, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::: The Bible is not all to be taken literally just like not everything I say is to be taken literally. The Bible does employ poetic language, metaphor, parables, and apocalyptic language. If I say "My grandfather passed away", I don't precede it with, "The following comment utilises a metaphor". Similarly, Revelation doesn't have an explicit statement that it uses apocalyptic language. But these things can by determined from the style of language and the context. As I've mentioned before, the style of language of Genesis 1 (for example) is narrative. Therefore ''that part'' of the Bible is meant to be taken literally. However, that doesn't mean that Revelation is false. A metaphor still conveys a truth (that my grandfather died, for example), even though it doesn't do it will literal meanings. Your comment of a disjunction is interesting, because that applies to the creation story, depending on your point of view. I wonder if Wisdom89, for example, believes in a literal Adam and Eve. If not, then where in the geneaologies, such as the one in Luke, was a literal person the son of a non-literal person? Where does the continuous biblical history switch from non-literal to literal? And if he does believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then he still has a problem, because Luke doesn't start with Adam, but says that Adam came from God, not from an ape. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:45, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::::"''...there is an obvious conflict if a person chooses to take the Bible verbatim''": There is? Where? I haven't come across it. Or perhaps you mean that there's an obvious conflict if a person chooses to take the Bible as written ''and to take the pronouncements of fallible men on evolution as true''? Yes, there is a problem then, but that doesn't mean that the solution is to reject the biblical account as accurate narrative. We are to trust God over men, so I choose to believe the Bible, not the ideological beliefs of evolutionary scientists who go beyond science to argue for things that have never been seen. By the way, the experts say that the creation account in Genesis was written as history, not poetry, metaphor, or etc. So on what basis do you read it as something other than literal history? Yep, on the basis of the beliefs of scientists who are in many cases atheists. That makes a lot of sense. Not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:The problem with a supernatural creator is that he is supernatural, i.e. it is unclear how he would interfere with the natural stuff. But that aside, there are quite some people who believe that we are living in simulation of some kind, or in a something that was created within an bigger alternative universe. Sure, not too many, but it is an idea you hear now and then, no matter how weird it might sound to us. Any solution to the problem of infinite regress that can be applied to deities ("What was there before god?"), can be evenly easily applied to aliens, especially those in an alternative universe, or those that run this place as a simulation.
:To be undecided on the identity of the creator is actually one of the key points that IDers make, namely that it does not study the intelligence itself (Dembski [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm]), and that the intelligence might be an alien (Behe). It is a crucial point in their argument that ID is scientific. But i figure that this is one of the points of contention between ID and real creationist. As you see, I am all in favor to teach the controversy:)
:If it is easy or not combine evolution and theology very much depends on your theology. Catholic Church for example has little problems. But we discussed this already into its details. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:00, 6 January 2008 (EST)

:: I accept that you might be "unclear" ''how'' a supernatural being would "interfere" with the natural, but how does that make it a "problem".
:: God, is ''outside of time'', because the time-space continuum that is our universe was part of His creation. Aliens would exist ''in'' time, and ''in'' the universe, so there is no way you can use the same explanation. As God is outside of time, "what was there before God?" is a nonsense question, as it assumed the existence of time.
:: I agree that to be undecided on the Creator is one of the points of ID, but that refers to an ''official position'', whereas I was referring to the beliefs of the individuals.
:: If you want to see what creationists think of the ID movement, you might find [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560/ this] informative.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::It makes it a problem, because it otherwise just becomes a "just-so story". If you say that A did something to B, you might want to first to establish is A had the ability to influence B at all.
:::If we are in a simulation, or embedded in an alternative universe, the being running our universe is also not bound by our rules. Who knows if they have time as we know it. The question, "what was the before the alien?" would be a nonsensical question, too, in an alternative universe without time, or a different version of time.
:::If ID makes a point to distinguish between an official position, and their privately held beliefs, we might want to do the same, and ignore their personal beliefs. Especially, since they could be anything. Thanks for the link on ID. Apparently there was also an AiG-CMI dispute, but I guess it wasn't on content.[[User:Order|Order]] 21:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::: You might want to establish that A can influence B, but with no reason to suppose that A can't influence B, it doesn't really seem to me to be a "problem".
:::: If the alien was also outside of time, then that "alien" is really more akin to the supernatural God than to what we understand by "aliens".
:::: I basically agree with leaving the IDers' personal beliefs out of it, but they seemed to be what was being raised in the discussion, so I responded accordingly.
:::: Yes, there is (still) a CMI/AiG dispute, but that's a totally different sort of thing than what we are talking about here, and as you indicate, not about content.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:16, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::::If you are happy with a logical possibility, rather than something more substantial, I can live with that. It is logically possible that my cat determines the weather on the East-Coast, but that doesn't make it true, nor believable. To explain how my cat influences the weather, is the least bit you could ask me to do.
:::::I don't know what you think about your deity, but if it were an alien in another universe, it would be rather disappointing, don't you think. It might be the alternative universe equivalent of an prepubescent computer geek, with rather unhealthy habits. Not sure I would call such an alien "god". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:29, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: The comparison with your cat is invalid, because we ''do'' have a fair idea of what cats are capable of, and determining the weather is not something within that capability. And in a sense we ''do'' have an idea of what God is capable of, even if we don't understand the mechanics of how it works. That is, almost by definition, God is capable of creating and interacting with the universe; if not, He wouldn't be God.
:::::: An alien in another universe is not outside of time, even if he/it is outside of ''our'' time/space continuum, and is more like what we believe aliens to be than like what we mean by "God".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::I am a bit surprised that you feel like continuing this rather absurd discussion, but you are more than welcome. Even though you find it highly unlikely, it seems like we agree that it is logically possible for my cat to determine the weather. Good. And I agree that there is little evidence that cats, in particular my cat, influence the weather. But I guess that there is likewise not much testable evidence that supernatural beings interfere with our world either. Or do you have a such test?
:::::::You can be free to define things as you want, but as with any definition, there is no guarantee that it actually exists. I could define the concept ''weather cat'', which are cats with the capability to determine the weather. By definition they have the capability to determine the weather. And I define furthermore, that weather cats are indistinguishable from other cats. So, by definition, you won't be able to tell me that my cat isn't a weather cat. See, this discussion becomes absurd quite quickly.
:::::::So, back to more serious shores. Technically, it appears that in our universe time cannot be separated from space, and that simple Newtonian notions of time seem to apply not even to our own universe. I am not sure what you know about the existence of space time or the characteristics of space time in alternative universes, but I see no reason why any of our conceptions of space time have to apply to another universe? It might not even have time at all. Nor space. But it might have the equivalent to a prepubescent computer geek who might be running a simulation. Who knows? Do you? [[User:Order|Order]] 06:29, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: My point about your cat was that we can argue from what we ''do'' know, rather, as you were claiming for God, what we ''don't'' know.
:::::::: Yes, a "weather cat" (which could hypothetically exist but is most unlikely to exist on Earth, else we would probably have some indication of it, so I'd reject that your cat is one) could determine the weather. So the question becomes whether or not there is any evidence for either (a weather cat or God).
:::::::: There is no evidence (that I know of!) for a weather cat. But there ''is'' evidence for a supernatural God. In a nutshell, it is that everything that begins has a cause (an observed an widely-accepted scientific principle), and this universe had a beginning (agreed by virtually everyone these days), so it had a cause, and that cause must be outside of the natural/material universe, so the creator of the ''natural'' universe must be ''super''natural.
:::::::: Hey, most of the discussions I have are trying to refute "absurd" ideas! This is no different! :-)
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::The strongest evidence that weather cats exists is that the weather is extremely unpredictable, just like cats. How else do you explain sudden changed in weather. And as said, it if by definition very difficult if not impossible to identify a weather cat, but this is exactly what you would expect, according to their definition. Cats are deceptive by definition, weather cats even more so.
:::::::The argument from cause has two problems. First, we still have a hard time to define what it means to be a "cause". The idea of a chain of events is in any case inadequate, and if anything is scientifically established, then that it extremely hard to define ''cause'' properly. And given a definition, it is still difficult to determine the "cause" of an event. Anyway, all the causes that have been observed, under the most accepted definitions, are causes that originate in this world, and not supernatural causes. If you say that your god is a cause like all the others we observe, he'd be natural, not supernatural.
:::::::But, more to the point, suppose there would be something that caused the origin of the world, we do not know exactly much about it, nor that it matters. For all that we know the original cause could be an inanimate object or an inanimate force. And of course, there is no evidence that this something, is identical with your god. This something could still be prepubescent computer geek from an alternative universe. Or his cat. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:41, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: How else do I explain sudden changes in the weather? I'm not expert on meteorology, but due to highs and lows, warm fronts and cold fronts, etc. These are all predictable (in the short term) without resort to weather cats.
:::::::: Rather than arguing against me, you seem to be arguing against the well-accepted principle of cause and effect. So I won't respond to that. Yes, most if not all observed causes are natural ones, but a natural cause can not be the cause of "nature" (the universe) itself, because a related principle is that something cannot cause itself. The only option left is a ''super''natural cause.
:::::::: We can deduce certain things about the Creator. I can't at the moment find an article that I read about this, but there is [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html this one] which explains at length the argument that I put very briefly above, and at the end touches on the point that the Ultimate Cause must be a personal creator. it specifically addresses your claim that it could be an inanimate object or force.
:::::::: But I'd like to ask you a question: Is it more ''reasonable'' to believe that ''something'' (or someone) created the universe, or that it just popped into existence out of nothing for no reason?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::How often do the weather man get it wrong? Quite often. And it would be entirely in the character of cats to behave like that.
:::::::The well-accepted principle of cause and effect, is not at all that well-accepted. It only applies to very specific situations. Every event has typically many causes, many sufficient causes, many insufficient causes, and it is not always trivial to pick the "real" cause from these. The "real" cause is often defined as "insufficient and non-redundant part of unnecessary but sufficient causes". Have fun applying this definition, or any of its alternatives. But as a shortcut, think about how often people argue about what did cause an event.
:::::::I see no problem with an infinite chain/tree of natural causes. Just as little as I see a problem with an infinite series of numbers that is bounded. Your argument that there must be a first cause is not much different from the Zeno's argument that movement is impossible. His argument was that Achilles can never pass a tortoise. Because whenever Achilles made up for half of the distance to the tortoise, the tortoise moved on a bit. And then Achilles would have to cross another half, and another half, etc. Zeno assumed that you can't have an infinite number of steps that is bounded, and concluded that Achilles can't pass he tortoise. But we all know that we can have an infinite number of steps that is bounded. Take the geometric series. Likewise, in between any two events, one causing the other, you got another event. I see no reason why you could not have an infinite series of causes, that is still all natural, bounded by this universe.
:::::::I'd rather have you explain me why you think that it must be a personal creator, than quoting some person. But if he showed that it must be a personal creator, did he by any chance confirm that it was an prepubescent computer geek in another universe? Or was it his cat?
:::::::Thanks for you final question, because that is probably the core of the argument. I do not claim that something popped into existence out of nothing. I have never seen anything popping into existence out of nothing and I doubt anyone else. It strikes me as absurd as assuming that somebody or something created things out of nothing. The only exception would be the creation of matter and anti-matter, but for some reason or another, this is probably not how the universe as we know it got started. The only thing we ever saw is that something was transformed, from one state to another. And since I can imagine how space can be transformed, and since time cannot be separated from space, it can probably be transformed too. So, I could perfectly well live with the idea that both were transformed from something that was neither time nor space. And that asking what there was before the universe is hence a bit pointless. As pointless as asking what is north of the north pole.
:::::::And you of course also have still the option that the beginning wasn't a singularity, but only something very close to one. thus that what we think is the begin, actually wasn't. In either case, my answer is that "popping into existence from nothing" is as absurd as "creating into existence from nothing". And that in either case I don't know. Because that is the honest answer if you don't know. A cat is not an answer, nor a supernatural being.
:::::::And when it comes to morality that emerges from the origin of the universe, I believe that for how to treat other humans, the state of the universe at time 0 is as important as the state of the universe at time 10 to the power -40 (as far back as physics is explained). Not important at all. The nature of the plasma at either of those times is completely irrelevant for my morals. There you have it. [[User:Order|Order]] 08:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: So you didn't actually read the reference I supplied? There's not much point in continuing this, if you are going to ignore information I provide.
:::::::: Weathermen rarely get it wrong, in my experience (and they are supposed to be particularly unreliable here in Melbourne). That is, they mightn't get the exact top temperature, or the exact amount of rain, or the exact timing of the arrival of the cool front. But they do correctly predict that the cool front is coming, and get the timing reasonably close. The point is that we have a fair idea (even if not a precise one) of how these things work, to the point where they can make reasonably good predictions.
:::::::: The details of which particular cause is responsible might be debatable, but the ''principle'' that things require a cause is well established.
:::::::: You have not answered the question I asked. I admit that the two choices I asked you to choose between are not the only possible choices, but one of those choices was not that "something (or someone) created the universe ''out of nothing''". So please answer the question.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Did you look at the reference? It is 24 pages. If you want to make an argument, please make it yourself. But taking a quick glance it it actually seems to argue along the lines of Zeno like here "An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite". We know that an infinite series doesn't have to sum up to infinity, which makes their point mute.
:::::::So you weathermen in Melbourne cannot even predict the temperature. And they probably even predict rain, and then it doesn't rain. Nobody doubts that they can use their radars, and see a cold front coming, but that is not predicting, thats an observation. What will be the weather in Melbourne on April 1, 2008?
:::::::The principle that things require a "cause", applies only to events, and what constitutes and event is defined by the observer. When talking about objects the concept of "cause" becomes void. What is the cause of a rock? We have a hard time to understand what that could even mean.
:::::::Your question was if I thought which of the two was more reasonable: "something (or someone) created the universe", I assume out of nothing, or that it "just popped into existence out of nothing for no reason". I think that both are evenly unreasonable. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, I did look at the reference. I even read it. Well, much of it (it only comes to 17 pages in my print preview!). But that reference had two things: 1) An extended version of the argument that I had already given you, so asking me to give it in my own words is silly, as I had already done so. 2) The argument about the ultimate cause being a personal creator. And that one I said was "at the end", so doesn't require you to read all 17 or 24 pages.
:::::::: You've misrepresented what I said about weathermen, and what they do is more than simply observation and is often referred to as "predicting". So that response doesn't work.
:::::::: "What is the cause of a rock?" Okay, it mightn't be the clearest way of asking it, but surely what is meant is "What caused the rock to be?" The event that brought the rock into existence is an, ummm, ''event''. I don't see how that event is "defined by the observer".
:::::::: If you can't figure which is the more reasonable, then I'm sorry, but it should be quite clear. One has a cause and the other doesn't. That's a straightforward application of the principle of cause and effect. And you can't object to the one with cause as being logically impossible given that I didn't limit the "something or someone" in any way.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::No giving it in your own words is not silly, it is courteous. You can't just ask me to do you homework. But I also looked at the end, since you asked for it. So, lets recall that the first half of the argument repeated the false assumption that an infinite sequence of steps has to be unbounded, which was also famously used in Zeno's paradox, and which is famously untrue. Cool. And the second part argues that the creator must be a person. Why, to change a state. Sorry, you do not need a full person to change a state. Any simple system with two states will do. It can't be deterministically stuck in one state, but that is about it. I wouldn't call that a person, it is just the most simple non-trivial two state system. It still doesn't explain anything, except that it postulates that a state changed, and even though it doesn't explain anything testable, I can certainly live with such a simple system as the origin.
:::::::So what is the weather on April 1, 2008, going to be? You probably don't know. But what we do know is that weather cats determine the weather by definition. So, I call tell you now already that the weather on April 1, 2008 will be determined by cats.
:::::::You can't tell me the cause of the rock is, but only the cause of an event associated with the rock. I was actually asking for the cause of the matter, and not the cause of an event associate with the matter. But anyway. Can you tell me more about this event. When does this event start? When does it end? Or does it happen at a single instance. At any time you look, you just see some matter. Or did the rock pop into existence?
:::::::I can figure out which of them is more reasonable. They are evenly unreasonable. I don't care that one version postulates an unknown cause for something that is unreasonable by itself to happen. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Sigh! I didn't say that it was silly to give it in my own words. What I said was that it's silly to ask me to do that when I've already done that.
:::::::: Your response to the impossibility of an infinite series is to declare it to be false. Wow, good argument. The second part argues that the creator must be a person in order to ''decide'' to create. A two-state system can't ''decide'' to change states.
:::::::: If don't follow the distinction you are making in your questions about the rock and matter.
:::::::: "''I don't care that one version postulates an unknown cause for something that is unreasonable by itself to happen.''": This is evading the question. Both options postulated that the event happened, so they were the same in that respect. And apart from postulating the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, it ''has'' happened (that the universe began), and this is agreed by almost everybody (except perhaps you).
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Oh, I assumed that you'd know that bounded infinite series are not impossible. Based on the assumption that infinite series are unbounded, Zeno came to the conclusion that Achilles can't overtake a tortoise. But we now know that infinite series can be bounded, and that therefore Achilles can overtake a tortoise. I think that is a good argument.
:::::::I asked you for the the cause of a rock, and not for the cause for an event associated with a rock. No worries if it doesn't make sense to you, it just shows that asking for the cause of a thing is nonsensical. So, I made that point. The second question was about the event that you described. I just asked you give some more details about it. None of these questions strikes me as difficult.
:::::::Oh sorry, take a non-deterministic system then. Which is a system that can either stay in one state, or go to the other.
:::::::If you ask me what I find more reasonable? Giving a reason for an unreasonable event, or giving none? I'd say giving none is a bit more reasonable. Giving a reason for an unreasonable event doesn't strike me as reasonable.
:::::::BTW: Did I say that the universe was infinite in time? I really don't know if it is. As mentioned before, I can imagine that space collapses, and since time and space are essentially the same, I can also imagine that time collapses. Asking what was before the collapse, is still as useful as asking what is north of the north pole. But as said, the universe might have collapsed into something like a singularity, but maybe it just almost collapsed but not quite. In that case there might be some sort of time before this universe. But that would not guarantee that time is infinite. It just means that it did not start at what we call the big bang. Maybe there was a bigger bang when it did start. But personally I think that scientists will have a hard time to look beyond our big bang. So my answer is, we don't know, and maybe we will never know. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:20, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: I think I was misunderstanding what you were getting at with infinite sets, but I now think that you misrepresented the article. You said that the first part argued 'that an infinite sequence of steps has to be unbounded", as though that's all it did. No, it (also) argued than an ''actual'' infinite is impossible.
:::::::: You say that you asked for the cause of a rock, not of an even associated with a rock, but if you asked what caused something, then you are ''implicitly'' asking what caused it ''to be'', i.e., to come into existence. That's one of the aspects of human language, that some things don't need to be explicitly stated in order to be understood.
:::::::: If, on the other hand, you are arguing that the universe doesn't need a cause, that is only true if it didn't come into existence. If it came into existence, that is, if it had a beginning, then that ''event'' needs a cause.
:::::::: My question was not about an unreasonable event, given that (a) the universe exists, and (b) it must have started to exist. So your excuses for answering the way you did don't wash. No, you didn't say that the universe was infinitely old, but that seemed to be the only explanation for what you were saying.
:::::::: You mightn't know, but I do. :-)
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:29, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::The article assumed that "that an infinite sequence of steps has to be unbounded", which is wrong. Add a second wrong assumption, that an actual infinite is logical impossible, doesn't make a difference. And you kind off glossed over the little fact that they only argue that the must have been a two state system at the beginning. This is just the smallest possible non-trivial system, and not exactly what we'd call a deity.
:::::::::I asked you for the cause of a rock, because I want you to understand that an event needs to be defined to be useful. We define when an event starts, when it stops, what is part of the event, and what not. And you couldn't answer the simplest questions about the "event", the rock coming into existence. The point is that we never see any event like the one you claim has happened at the beginning of the universe. Nobody has every seen an event on an macroscopic scale, where there is first nothing, and then something. Causes are only defined for events where there is first something, and then there is the same something in a different state.
:::::::::So, if you think about asking what caused the universe to exist, maybe you should first try to explain what we would call the cause of a rock to exist. We might figure out that you question is meaningless to begin with. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

==New Information==
I have been reading the talk page and wanted to ask what Philip means about New Information? I have heard this term many times in the creation vs. evolution debate but truly, I am perplexed as to what it means for the definition keeps moving in regards to the scope. So I have a few questions to help ferret out the answer. A frame shift produces a new active protein is or is not considered new information? A point mutation in a neuron produces a new protein is or is not considered new information? A mutation in a protein due to a chaperone causes a different function to occur is or is not considered new information? A provirus infecting gametes is or is not considered new information? An [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387345 endogenous retrovirus] infection in a human is or is not considered new information? A change in the pH, due to an infection, of an area of the body where gametes are formed causes some chaperonin to fold the proteins for [[Nucleotide excision repair]] incorrectly, allowing for diamers to form is or is this not considered new information? Finally, is it only considered new information if there is an addition to the genome or is it based on an addition to the functions of the genome? (I ask this due to regulating proteins often failing to regulate protein expression causing a host of changes in an organism.)

I phrased the questions above to really see what you consider new genetic information. I listed an example of a gain of function mutation with HIV1 and the gated ion channel that has allowed for an increase of infection of HIV1 in humans, I do not know if this series of mutations infringed on any other function of the viruses genome but I do know that due to this mutation HIV1 is the most prevalent form of HIV found in humans. This gain of information and loss of information debate is, how I should say it, trivial, considering the differences found in genomes between species and even sub races. Speaking of sub races, would you consider the increase of melanin to be a gain or a loss of information? (this is due to a regulating protein being mutated)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:: It's not possible to tell from the descriptions you provide whether or not they constitute new information, because [[information]] has to do with ''meaning''. It's like asking if you add a letter to a word and create a new word, is that new information? Well, it depends on whether the sentence containing the word says anything new, says the same thing, or is turned to gibberish.
:: The debate is not trivial at all. The best illustration, I believe, which I used above or on another page recently, is that to go from the first single-celled creature to you, you have to add lots and lots of ''information'' for hair, skin, blood, teeth, etc. That is, "information" is stuff with ''meaning'', not random genetic letters or even proteins. I'm not saying that it has to be at the macro level of organs; it applies at the micro level of blood-clotting mechanism, for example, also, but it still has to be for something that wasn't there before. Evolution ''absolutely requires'' that it be able to add huge amounts of such new information. Creation does not require this. So this is a critical deciding factor between evolution and creation; between whether we are the result of a giant cosmic accident, or were designed by an Intelligent Being; between whether we are rearranged pond scum or created in the Image of God; between whether we suffer from depression due to having no purpose and (in some cases) nobody to love us, or whether we are loved by the Creator of the universe who has a purpose for us. No, it is not a trivial matter at all.
:: More below, including a possible answer to your question about melanin.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

::::Phillip, just to summarize your statement, my descriptions do not demonstrate new information because they show no meaning. I would agree except for one point, many cellular pathways are set up in cascades where when one protein changes, the whole cascade can change thereby changing the function of the pathway. So the analogy that you provided can apply if the altered cascade does not provide any advantage to the cell but we have recorded several cases where an altered cascade has improved the organism’s survival (HIV1 for example).
::::For the comment about adding huge amounts of information, did you know that Amoeba dubia genome is 200 times larger than that of a human? I know what you are thinking “what part of the amoeba’s genome is used and what part is junk”. If only 1% of it is used it is still larger than the Human genome. This is where the new information claims fail, they leave out the environment. The information only has “meaning” when applied to the environment. If a mutation is beneficial to the organism and is passed down to allow for better adaptation compared to the rest of the organism’s species then it does not matter if it is a gain or a loss of information of the genome, only that the organism is better suited to survive. So these claims about new information are in fact trivial since an organism’s evolution is based on their ability to survive, not on how large their genome is. Just to add an example to this information and meaning in regards to repetitive sequences, if an organism develops a repeat that causes a doubling of the amount of heat shock proteins found in their cells they would be better suited for a warmer climate due to fewer errors in protein folding within the cell. Now this mutation would not be seen as “new information” by your definition however if the environment were to warm up the organism would have a better chance of surviving thus adapting to the environment, thus showing evolution without “new information”.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:02, 8 January 2008 (EST)
::::: A more accurate summary (of what I meant if not what I said) would be that your descriptions do not demonstrate new information because they show no ''new'' meaning. Without specifics I can't comment on the altered cascade example, but an improved chance of survival does not necessarily mean that there is new information. Search the "Evolutionist = Atheist?" section above for "beetle" to see an example of why this is so.
::::: I had heard that the genome of an Amoeba was much larger than that of a human. No, I wouldn't consider it junk—that's evolutionary thinking that has held back science because if it's junk, why study it? But they're now finding that so-called "junk DNA" has a purpose, as one would expect if it had been designed by an intelligent designer. This may not be the answer, but you are describing the information at the [[information#statistical|statistical level]]. The actual amount of ''meaningful'' information need not be directly related to the size of the genome. See the example in [[information#measuring information]]. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5355/ This article] briefly mentions your amoeba and gives a possible explanation. It also discusses the sorts of things we are discussing here.
::::: But the real point is, does that amoeba (or more accurately, the original living cell) have the information for bone marrow, tear ducts, ears, and kidneys? Clearly they don't. Okay, perhaps that's not clear to you because of your next bit about the environment. But it's not the environment that applies the meaning; the meaning is applied by what ''reads'' the genetic information, and that is the cellular machinery. But the cellular machinery doesn't understand the genome to have the information for fingers, feathers, or forked tongues either, so it's still correct to say that that information is not there, and had to be added at some point. And indeed, that's what evolution is supposed to be all about, isn't it? As living things evolve, they evolve scales, then feathers. But that's at a morphological level. At the genetic level, they evolve the information for scales, then the information for feathers. It was not there to start with, it had to be added along the way.
::::: "''If a mutation is beneficial to the organism and is passed down to allow for better adaptation compared to the rest of the organism’s species then it does not matter if it is a gain or a loss of information of the genome, only that the organism is better suited to survive.''": It may not matter for ''survival'' (see the beetle example again), but it ''does'' matter if you are going to explain where the information for tendons, muscles, and ball joints come from. The rest of your post was just an elaboration of the claim that evolution is demonstrated in survival adaptations, which is not true. Creation also predicts survival adaptations. Evolution is demonstrated in one creature changing (over time) into another, by adding new genetic information for new organs, mechanisms, processes, etc. If evolution only proceeds by survival adaptations that ''lose'' information, before long there won't be a working genome left.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::The discussion isn't trivial indeed, mostly because it is often difficult to distinguish between syntax and semantics. DNA doesn't have semantics by itself, and that is where the "information" analogy breaks. The genetic code is a mechanism that controls the synthesis of proteins directly, and there is no semantic step at all involved. We figure out by research that a certain bio-molecular process is meant to form eye. The bio-chemistry itself however has no clue about the meaning of what it is doing. It just does. And on this level duplication of code means changing the end result. And changing the code means changing the end result.
:::And your second argument just attaches a moral value to a theory that you reject. It is a bit a pity that you can't see the beauty in self-organizing processes, most other people actually enjoy watching them. There is some beauty to them, and I wouldn't call it scum. But of course this an aesthetic judgment of mine. Neither your moral, nor my aesthetic judgment matter to what actually happens on the bio-molecular level. But what strikes me even more that you feel that people have no intrinsic value. That they are not loved for who they are, but for their origins. I find that somewhat odd. And it is also odd also that you feel the need for some external purpose. Humans are social beings, and there are typically lots of people around that have a purpose for you. And probably even one that you enjoy. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:44, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: I'm not sure what you mean by DNA not having semantics "by itself", but see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_66-70.pdf here]. The rest of that paragraph has been answered by my comments (below) about robots.
:::: What "self-organizing processes"? I'd suggest that the beauty that you are talking about is in processes that you think are self-organising but which I think are created. "pond scum" was a term used by an evolutionist, and yes, according to the evolutionary view, people have no intrinsic value, as they are merely a cosmic accident, slightly evolved animals, even a parasite on the planet. This is evolutionary teaching. William Provine:
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.}}
:::: But don't attribute that to me. I believe that we are specially created by God and are the pinnacle of His creation. The entire creation—yes, the entire universe—was created ''for us''!
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::It took a glance at the paper, and it uses the same level of information as you definition of [[Information]]. The paper argues that things are complicated, but that doesn't define meaning. But, indeed we will get to it when we discuss those robots.
:::::That processes are self-organizing is not a belief, we can observe them self-organise. All you need to observe is a circular dependence between sub-processes that maintains itself. But we will get to this later as well.
:::::Thanks for the quote of William Provine. There is a lot in it that sounds reasonable. But it is not evolutionist teaching, it is the opinion of an individual evolutionist, mostly on a matter that is not directly related to the process of evolution. Anyway, the first part just dismisses teleological arguments. And the second half just states, a bit harsh, that there is no reason to look at the origins to define meaning for yourself. I agree, if you want to look for meaning in your life, don't look at the primordial soup, but look around you. Humans are worth the effort, even if they aren't specially created. Or even because of it. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:02, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: I assumed from what we were discussing that your "self-organizing processes" were things like spontaneous generation, not what I would call processes that were ''designed'' to maintain themselves.
:::::: Ideas have implications, and Provine is explaining what he believes the implications of evolution are. And he is not alone. Your counter argument is to claim that ideas don't have implications and so divorce the implications from the idea. Your argument about humans being worth it is circular. That is, your claim of human worth is based on observation of what is, not on logical consequence of how humans came to be. But that merely begs the question of why that observation is so. To put it another way, I would say that your observation that humans are "worth the effort" is ''because'' they were designed in the image of God. It's like saying that you computer is a really good one. Sure, we agree. But ''why'' is it a really good one? Because it was well-designed, or because it fell together from pieces rattling around in a box? You say "it doesn't matter how it came to be; it's just a good computer". I respond, "but I say that the only reason that it's a good computer ''is because it was well-designed''". A well-designed computer will be a good computer. A computer thrown together in an accident won't be. Trying to pass judgement on the worth of the computer whilst ignoring the cause does not mean that the cause is irrelevant. So with humans. If we are the result of a cosmic accident, we aren't worth anything. If we were designed by God, we are. You agree that we are worth something, so it follows that we were designed by God. The problem is that many people these days ''do'' see themselves and others as worthless, or something tending that way, and in many cases, it is due to the teachings of evolution, as the Provine quote illustrates.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::First, you really don't need to have any clue about how a process started to observe that it is self-replicating. And spontaneous generation isn't self-replication, it is the opposite of it. With self-replication you have something, and later you have something that is the same, or at least very similar. And still don't need to know anything about its origin to observe that something replicates itself.
:::::::Actually, as far as I can see I didn't argue that ideas don't have implications. But just because you share some ideas with somebody, you still don't have to share all the ideas that this somebody believes are implied by it. And certainly not the things that you think are implied by it.
:::::::Yes, indeed, I argue that humans are worth something because of who they are, and not about how their distance ancestor came to be. First, I notice the tendency to compare people to things, and I find the whole discussion about the functionality of things in comparison to people a bit awkward. But just let say, I don't actually care if my computer is well designed, I care if it works. And if it works well, I call it well designed, even it it was put together by a bunch of ignorami. It is know that a good design-process increases the chances that you get a good product of a predictable quality, but with people I prefer them to come in odd shapes and sizes. Its more like collecting precious stones, some are nice because they are regular, but other are nice because they have interesting inclusions.
::::::: Nobody claims that people are thrown together in accident. That is just a false dichotomy. We don't know if the origins were an accident. It could very well be that it wasn't. But even if it were, the people that are around today aren't assembled by accident. So, lets not repeat the whole evolution debate, because this is about the value of people, and if the origins matter.
::::::: Provine actually doesn't say anywhere that humans are worth nothing. He only says that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning for human existence. But that doesn't exclude that humans can have purpose and meaning for another. You however did say that humans are by themselves worth nothing. If something is depressing then it is that thought. If their distant ancestor weren't created, then they would be worth nothing. But you want them to be worth something, therefore you need a deity that lends them some worth, which they don't have by themselves. I in contrast think that they are worth something by themselves, and I really don't care if their ancestors descended from apes, were cloned by aliens, or popped into existence from nothing. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: I didn't realise that you were equating "self organizing" with "self replicating".
:::::::: Your whole argument about worth amounts to "I think they're worth something, and that I can't show how this is so is irrelevant".
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::In this context self-replicating can be thought off as the same a self organizing.
:::::::::And I think that is a much better argument, than yours. There is evidence that these people are relevant to me. Your claim is they are worth nothing by themselves, except for how their distance ancestor was created. Something you might be wrong about, and something for which you have little proof. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm not sure Philip has enough experience or knowledge of Molecular Biology to carry on this discussion. This is not a slight at Philip - I've come to respect him, and he's quite an eloquent and logical speaker/writer from what I've seen here. The concept of creating new information at the level of DNA is universally accepted among biologists. As a scientist, someone who is entombed in science/biology ever day, I will never be convinced by a creationist that new genetic information cannot be created by mutation. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: The idea that new information is created might be "accepted", but I'd say that it's accepted purely because it ''must be so'' if evolution is true, not because it's been observed. And if it was so well accepted (with evidence), then why couldn't Richard Dawkins provide an example when asked? He was asked "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Dawkins was unable to answer the question, and instead resorted to answering a question that wasn't asked. (see video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g here].) This (not to mention various other sources) would argue strongly that your implication that this phenomenon is well know is simply wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 8 January 2008 (EST)

::::Philip, I would not expect Dawkins to provide examples since this is out of his field of study. His background and contributions to evolutionary biology (real research topics not the books and PR) are based on organism behavior not genetics nor biochemistry. Just because he did not know the answer that was posed to him does not mean that it does not exist. I have provided a well documented case with HIV1-M and the gated ion channel of “new information” in the evolution of a virus. It is a bit more complicated in animals due to the generations of organisms genetics that have to be recorded to validate the biochemical and genetic aspect of this “new information” claim. As a scientist I would make the reasonable claim that in the near future we would indeed see recorded changes in human genomes that allow for better adaptation.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:14, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:::::[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5355/ This article] that I linked to into my previous response to you just now points out that Dawkins discusses the information issue in both that video and in ''The Blink Watchmaker''. Even if his laboratory research is not in this area, it is still something that he should be able to answer. In one of my recent posts I asked where you put those links that I didn't get back to. Until I follow them up, I can't comment on the specific one you mention, but as I have pointed out before, if evolution were true there would need to have been probably ''billions'' of information-adding mutations, and surely we would expect to know of at least ''hundreds'' if not thousands of examples. I've also said that there is a very small chance that the odd one might occur by accident, so even if your example does turn out to be what you claim it to be, it is still more consistent with the creationary view than the evolutionary view. Your ''faith'' in what science will observe in the future is touching, but that's all it is. And it still ignores that a survival adaptation can be information-losing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::::With respect to the youtube clip, it is said that when the interviewers asked that question - which used creationist "information" speak - Dawkins suddenly realized that he was framed by the interviewers, who pretended to not be creationist. But, regardless of whether this is the case, even if a single person, even a knowledgable person, doesn't give an answer to a question, it doesn't meant that this question doesn't have an answer. Googling might help. Try for example [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=chromosome+5+duplication "chromosome 5 duplication"] or [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=chromosome+16+duplication "chromosome 16 duplication"] or follow up some of the leads that Able gave you.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:58, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: "It is said". But is "it" correct? Is Dawkins only able to answer questions put to him by an evolutionist? They didn't tell him that they were creationists (else he would not have allowed himself to be interviewed by them, probably—so much for free academic inquiry), but they didn't do anything deceptive. He didn't ask; they didn't tell. Resorting to that sort of rebuttal shows that there's no real rebuttal.
:::: And what is "creationist" about the question? Except perhaps that evolutionists mightn't actually ask for ''evidence''? No, logically it doesn't mean that there is no answer. But if an expert can't answer the question, it very strongly suggests that there ''is no answer''! And by the way, Dawkins has had further oppurtunity since to answer the question, and has still provided no examples.
:::: Googling would only throw up lots of sceptic claims of new information that don't check out. I've looked at such claims before. And how many times do I need to point out that ''duplication of '''existing''' information is not the generation of '''new''' information''? Yet what do you give me? Google searches for ''duplication''!
:::: I did forget to get back to Able806's examples. Where did he post them again?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Not sure why you expect me to rebut a youtube clip? As said, just because Dawkins didn't give an answer doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. And if it is true that Dawkins would have given them an interview if he had know that they are creationist, which is believable, you can imagine that he was stunned when they blew their cover by asking a creationist question. That would make his behavior even more believable. But regardless of what it is, neither of us are his custodian. And I would argue against the fact that he hasn't provided example since. He probably explained quite often how things evolve. Except that he doesn't use "information" speak. Maybe because he thinks is inappropriate, too, since dna has no semantics.
:::::I wouldn't call it a skeptic claim if sequencing of a chromosome shows that lots of part are duplications. And neither that certain duplications lead to certain abnormalities. That is plain and simple an observation, and not a claim.
:::::How many time do you have to point out that duplication of existing information doesn't generate new information? Until you realize that this statement is wrong. Duplication of a string reiterates, reinforces, and even changes the information. Duplication of a string reiterates, reinforces, and even changes the information. Duplication of a string reiterates, reinforces, and even changes the information. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: I expected you to because it damages your argument and because that's what you appeared to be trying to do.
:::::: "''...just because Dawkins didn't give an answer doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.''": Yeah, right. Just because someone that should be able to answer a question can't do so, it doesn't mean that there isn't one? No, it doesn't ''absolutely prove'' that there isn't one. But it's mighty strong ''evidence'' that there isn't one.
:::::: "''...by asking a creationist question.''": So you agree that asking for evidence is something that only a creationist would do? I think that there's evidence that it wasn't that question that caused him to realise that it was a creationist asking the question. He has had opportunity to answer the question since, and has failed to do so.
:::::: Your attempt to argue that duplication is something other than duplication is illogical, as illustrated by my example of duplicating the article about London in an encyclopedia of places. Merely restating that duplication is change is not an argument. So my question was not wrong.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::I don't see how that damages my argument. People don't give answers for various reasons. And one is that don't feel like talking to some person anymore.
:::::::And it is not the case only creationist dare to ask questions, but only creationists dare to ask questions that are besides the point. That could be another reason why they didn't get an answer. Sometimes, you get an question where you really don't know where to begin to explain that its besides the point. Why is it besides the point. Because dna isn't used by a semantic interpretation, and since the increase of information, whatever that might mean in this context, is quite irrelevant.
:::::::Your example of London in the encyclopedia only proves my point that dna isn't an encyclopedia. Thanks for repeating your observation, although I am not quite sure why you did it, because I thought you believed that duplication doesn't convey additional information. If you are still in doubt that duplicating a string doesn't add information, visit my family. I have a brother who is two years older than me. Who has a brother who is two years older than him. Who has a brother who is two years older than him. Who has a brother who is two years older than him. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Dawkins did keep talking, so that can't be his excuse.
:::::::: I didn't say that only creationists dare to ask questions. I asked if it's only creationists who will ask ''for evidence''. It was not beside the point. Earlier in the interview Dawkins had talked about information ("I suppose the great mystery of life is to explain where the complexity of life came from. Another way of talking about complexity is to say 'information'. 'Information' is a kind of measure of complexity."), so it was simply asking him for examples of what he had talked about, and as such was quite relevant.
:::::::: You still haven't explained how duplicating the London page (or the Bolognese page) is the generation of ''new'' information, such as is required for the instructions to build lungs, livers, and ligaments.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Not just creationists ask for evidence. So your argument revolves about an interview where you weren't present and that could be interpreted in different ways. Is that your scientific evidence? Is that the best evidence you have? So, let me ask you, where is your actual evidence. Or is this it? A youtube clip?
::::::::: I already explained to you that the London bridge example is a very nice illustration of the fact that dna doesn't work like an encyclopedia. That it works more like a cookbook, and the bolognese example illustrates it fairly well. Because, in dna it is strings that are duplicated, and not information. Syntax is duplicated, not semantics. And on the level of dna, a duplication means to do something twice. It doesn't tell you more about how to make anything else but bolognese, but it tells you how many you have to make. And that is information, too.
::::::::: The crucial bit is you claim that duplication of strings cannot add information. And this general claim has been debunked. I see that you want to change the subject to lungs, eyes, etc. As mentioned before, it appears to be creationist tactic to not answer, but only to ask questions. Your claim that duplication cannot add information has been debunked repeatedly, regardless of how lungs got created. Or weren't you able to tell me how many brothers I have? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
If you meant the HIV Vpu example I listed the research publications on the [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]] page.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:Ah, that was it. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed the arguments from "information" are made based on a fairly basic misunderstanding of how dna works. The common conception is that dna is something like an encyclopedia, where you can look up definitions and descriptions. A better analogy would be however that of a cookbook, which describes how things are made. Another misconception is that dna is read and semantically understood, before the information is used to control the biochemistry in our cells. There is however now semantic step in processing dna. Reading dna (or rna) means at the same time executing it, i.e. generating the associated proteins. Imagine that reading a cookbook actually produces what is read. If you read the recipe for spaghetti bolognese twice, you will have created spaghetti bolognese twice. If you duplicate the recipe for spaghetti bolognese, you will create it twice as often. Anyway, before I get lost in my analogy, lets summarize it as follows. The common misconception is that ''the book of life'' is an encyclopedia, while it is actually a cookbook with a set of instructions, and reading them means executing them. With this in mind it is actually very enlightening to see the examples that Able provided. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Indeed, in some respects the cookbook analogy is better than the encyclopedia analogy. Not that it helps your case, though. Two recipes for bolognese does not provide any sort of support for the idea that, by chance, the cookbook could add a recipe for a wedding cake. As I keep saying, duplication of ''existing'' information is not adding ''new'' information.
::: But to expand on the cookbook idea, and to hopefully provide a better answer to Able806's post above, random changes in the cookbook might indeed change some values, such as more or less onion in the bolognese. Sometimes these changes might be "beneficial", i.e. some might like less onion. In other cases, they might make the sauce too dry.
::: But no amount of random change to the bolognese recipe will add the instructions for marzipan, let alone add the extra equipment needed for marzipan (such as a grinder for the almonds or a roller for rolling it into thin sheets).
::: I'm not sure that I follow the distinction you are trying to make with your next point. I think you are saying that there is no intelligent being reading the DNA "cookbook" and ''understanding'' it to carry out the instructions, but instead it's more like a robot following a set of programmed instructions. This is true, but the robot needs to be ''programmed'' by an intelligent being to "understand" those instruction. Who programmed the genetic machinery to "understand" the genetic instructions? Sorry, you haven't solved anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 8 January 2008 (EST)
::::Oh, no two recipes for bolognese give you two bologneses. And it is indeed quite unlikely that a simple random change won't change it into a wedding cake. But by mutation '''and''' selection you can transform one recipe to the other step by step. What would keep me from leaving out the meat, and then adding cherries rather than tomatoes to the bolognese? This way I am already on my way to the filling for a black forest cake. But not because I am working towards wedding cake, but because I like spaghetti with cherries.
::::As it comes to the tools, the great thing is that it doesn't use any tools, other than those that can be produced by genetic information, i.e. other than by cooking itself. So, if anything you can use stale bread to beat the meat. and if benefitial stale bread will be produced on purpose. And if beneficial the stale bread would become harder, get a handle. But you don't find metal tools. You will only find tools made of the same stuff, as the stuff that is produced. You might find it fantastic, but if we look into a cell this is exactly what happens. If there would be a metal grinder in the cell, that wouldn't be produced by the cells itself, you would have a case.
::::This also answers right away what produces the "robots". They were produced by earlier "robots", reading genetic code. And these were produced by earlier "robots", reading genetic code. And these were produced by earlier "robots", reading genetic code. You probably get the clue. In the end it all boils down to the argument that there cannot be an infinite series of events. Which is still not true. Granted, it seems like we are only able to understand a finite number of events, so at some point or another, we might not know what is going on. But in that case the honest answer is that we don't know.
::::But, this reminds me of the creationist tactic to keep asking questions, without ever answering one themselves, assuming that finding an unanswered question proves them to be right. So how do these robots get programmed in your theory? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''two recipes for bolognese give you two bologneses''": Correct. More of the same, not something ''new''.
::::::Eat it and you will feel the difference. Do this every day and see your how your fitness changes. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: How does that make it something ''new''? Simple. It doesn't. And eating two a day would probably make me fat and reduce my fitness, thus is a ''downhill'' change, not an ''uphill'' change as evolution requires. Bombed out twice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::How does that make something new? You answered it yourself, by making a second portion of bolognese. If you are on a camping trip, a second portion of bolognese can make all the difference. Of course, if you want something else than bolognese, mutation and selection is the mechanism to go. So, neither one of them works alone, but they do the trick together. And from what you say about gaining weight, I conclude that you are not living on a pacific island, where weight increases your appeal to women. See, in a different environment, something that is a disadvantage, can suddenly turn into an advantage. The double bolognese types would go extinct in Melbourne, but thrive in the Pacific. And, who knows, maybe at some point, people in Melbourne wouldn't even think about having offspring with any of the double bolognese types and vice versa. Does this sound like the beginning of speciation? It does. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''But by mutation '''and''' selection you can transform one recipe to the other step by step.''": Only if the mutations are actually capable of doing that.
::::::Sure, if they can't they can't. We'll come to that later. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::: "''What would keep me from leaving out the meat, and then adding cherries rather than tomatoes to the bolognese?''": Nothing. But we are not talking about ''you'', an ''intelligent being'', doing it, but it being done by ''random changes''.
::::::Sure, but for the rules of evolution it doesn't matter if the selection is man made or not. MRSA staph bacteria evolve, even though the selective pressure is man made. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Oh, I forgot to buy meat, and took by accident the wrong can out of the cupboard. Cherries rather than tomatoes. Silly me. But it was tasty, so I kept the recipe. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: A bolognese with no meat nor tomatoes, but cherries is only "tasty" if you define ''any'' change as being an improvement, which means that natural selection is not needed, because ''every'' change will be selected. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::I don't have to find any change tasty, to find bolognese with no meat nor tomatoes, but cherries tasty. What kind of reasoning is this. The other day, when I accidentally added cat food, I hated it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''As it comes to the tools, the great thing is that it doesn't use any tools, other than those that can be produced by genetic information,...''": By ''existing'' genetic information.
::::::Sure. What else did you expect? Somebody or something from outside the cell creating them? If you'd find that you'd have a case. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: But there is no existing genetic information for the new tools required. And yes, they are required, as I mentioned, to crush the almonds and to roll the icing. You can't eliminate the tools required by declaring them to be not required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::For all tools that are used in a cell, there is information in the cell as to how to build them. If you want to build something that cannot be build this way, then it won't happen. Just like we don't have animals with aluminum spines. We can simply observe if all the tools are created by the cell. Nobody claims that in evolution anything impossible can happen. Tht can only happen in creationism. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''So, if anything you can use stale bread to beat the meat. and if benefitial stale bread will be produced on purpose.''": The question was crushing almonds. I don't think stale bread would be hard enough.
::::::Agreed, if stale bread isn't hard enough, or if there wouldn't be a natural substitute, it wont happen. We also don't find animals with aluminum spines. A creator could do this, but nature has to stick to the material it has. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Exactly. And it doesn't have all the materials, so where do they come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::If it doesn't have the materials it wouldn't happen. Do you have any evidence that some outside party brought in material that was missing? [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''And if beneficial the stale bread would become harder''": If it wasn't hard enough in the first place, it would be discarded.
::::::Sure it would, unless there would be some other use for it. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: Storytelling. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::In our hypothetical example, it would even be falsifiable. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''If there would be a metal grinder in the cell, that wouldn't be produced by the cells itself, you would have a case.''": I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, but the point is that many things ''would not have been'' in the cell already.
::::::Not sure, I am pretty sure that all things that a cell needs are there at cell division. There are no tools popping up miraculously. If you would observe this, you would have a case. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: I'm getting very close to refusing to discuss this with you any more. You have no clue to what you are talking about (i.e. the arguments for creation), but are arguing anyway.
::::::: Of course all the things that a cell needs are there at cell division. But to "evolve" a bolognese into marzipan you need ''new'' tools, not just new instructions. The same with a cell. New instructions are not enough. You need ''new'' tools to carry out those new instructions. The cell does not have the ''new'' tools required. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::What new tools, that are not produced by the cell, do you need? There are none. All tools that are needed by are cell are present by a cell. As the cell changes so do the tools, because they are an integral part of it. I get a bit tired by the fact that you seem to struggle with understanding circular dependencies, and feedback loops. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''And these were produced by earlier "robots", reading genetic code.''": Yep, in biology, the law of biogenesis: That life only comes from life (which abiogenesis tries to ignore).
::::::Sure. And abiogensis tries to find and incremental way from chemistry to bio-chemistry. They apparently don't have an answer. I'll ask you later more about your answer. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::: "''In the end it all boils down to the argument that there cannot be an infinite series of events. Which is still not true.''": It is true, as the long article I linked to explains. A real infinite set is a logical impossibility. And of course almost everyone accepts that, which is why the universe and life is thought to have begun, rather than have been around forever. So you've explained nothing.
::::::Who accepts that there are no real infinite sets? Actually the reals are an infinite set. Any interval in the reals is an infinite set, too. {{unsigned|Order}}
::::::: The article is not talking about sets of reals! <scream> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::But it should. Or at least use the rationals. The article is using, just like Zeno, a finite, ordered set. And if you live in a world like that, we all agree that Achilles cannot pass the tortoise. But we do not live in a world where Achilles cannot pass a tortoise, and we do not live in a world where infinite sets are a logical impossibility. Sure, I can imagine how live is in flatland, but that doesn't make this world flatland. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::: "''the creationist tactic to keep asking questions, without ever answering one themselves''": Rubbish. I do my best to answer every question asked. And I often ask questions that go unanswered.
::::: "''So how do these robots get programmed in your theory?''": So you don't know? When were you planning on studying the idea that you so strongly argue against? (Let's see if you answer that one!) I have already said ''who'' programmed them, so I'm assuming your question is how He did it. I would have thought it was obvious: They were created with the programming built in.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::That is not the full answer, that is just postulating. How were they created? In what environment? Why four bases? Why not silicon based? Was there a lab? What did it look like? Where came the raw material from? What were the conditions? Or did they pop into existence? Do you have any evidence that anything that complex ever popped into existence? And who was it who created it? And do you have any testable evidence for any of this? [[User:Order|Order]] 10:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: No answer can be the "full" answer. Any answer is only going to create more questions. But the answer did answer the question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::You give up this easily? So, if you cannot even answer these very basic follow up questions, then your alleged answer doesn't answer much. When you ask me how the universe came to be I'll tell you that we don't know. When we ask you, you say you know for certain, that it was made by some personal entity. And if you cannot answer any follow up question, what do we need your answer for? It appears that you don't know either. You wish, maybe, but you apparently don't know. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, I presume you've read [http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm this article] by Dawkins which goes into depth about the interview in question and the long answer he says he perhaps should have given at the time. If so, what about his answer is, in your view, not answering the question? I would quite understand it if you said that you don't agree with the answer, but that's not the same as saying Dawkins didn't actually give one. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, I've read it before. It's the main thing I was referring to when I said that he's had opportunity since to answer the question. But still nowhere in that article does he actually answer the question, i.e. supply examples of mutations generating new genetic information. The easiest way for him to answer the creationist video with him on it would be to say, "I was caught unprepared, but here are the examples they wanted...". But providing the examples is one thing that he ''doesn't'' do in that article. And if you've read that, you might like to read [http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html this], which also discusses the event, and has links to various other details about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::The article you link to basically just writes off the first part of Dawkins' reply about information theory. Which in some ways I agree with. To me it was irrelevant and made Dawkins out to be some sort of techie nerd! But then I suppose if you're dealing with DNA you have to be pretty clued up on information science. All in all though it certainly detracted from his answer and made it look like he was avoiding the question. Further, the article has not one but two links to that ridiculous deceitful set-up job interview. It's been discredited and makes a mockery of honest Christians trying to entertain dialogue with science. I'm amazed that Creationists are still using it as proof of evolutionary biologists' inability to talk about increased genetic information.
::::::::Besides which Dawkins does go into detail about how gene replication can cause increased information through mutation followed by natural selection. He describes very well how markers throughout the species tree show where genes have replicated without reproducing, (i.e. stayed within the would-be parent's DNA as a mutation), and then mutating further across generations so that the two originally identical genes become different. If the mutation then becomes reproductively useful then natural selection has created new genetic information. I think he cites the trace of genetic mutations that resulted in haemoglobin.
::::::::Now creationists would still argue that those types of mutations don't happen, but Dawkins still answered the question. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:10, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: The Dawkins interview (if that's what you are referring to as a "job interview") was not a deceitful setup and has not been discredited (although attempts have been made).
::::::::: Dawkins spins an elaborate story about how genetic information was produced, but the question was for ''examples'', not the story, and he did not provide ''examples''. So did not answer the question.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::No, not "job interview", "''set-up job'' interview" Bad wording I agree :)
::::::::::OK, we could go back and forth for ever that the interview was deceitful/discredited, no it wasn't, yes it was, no it wasn't.... But I'll leave you with [http://www.tccsa.tc/video/deception_response.pdf this link].
::::::::::As for examples, he does give examples, such as haemoglobin. But you don't seem to want to accept anything that falls short of a new limb, even though you obviously know enough about evolution to recognise that that is an unreasonable demand to make. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 06:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: That link has nothing of substance in the way of showing that the interview was deceitful, and thus fails to discredit it. Most of it is nitpicking details or arguing that the interview was misleading because evolution is right and creation wrong. In other words, judging the evidence on the basis of the ideology.
::::::::::: He spins a story about how the haemoglobin molecule came about, but it is not an example of something that has been ''seen'' to increase the genetic information, because what brought about the variations was not observed. No, it's not a new limb I want. It's actual evidence I want, not the evolutionary just-so story.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::As I said, we could both assert that it is/isn't deceitful ad infinitum. I maintain that concealing the sponsor (AiG) of the interview is deceitful and this undenied fact has discredited the interview. You don't. Fair enough. 
::::::::::::He doesn't "spin a story". It's genetic mutation 101. Genetic mutation can happen in principally one of three ways.
:::::::::::::1. At replication, a base pair is incorrectly replicated, so you end up with a genetic sequence with one different letter compared to the original. This will cause a different protein to be produced and, if the change is beneficial, it will have a good chance of surviving through natural selection. But this adds '''no new information''' - no new bits creating the code for an additional protein.
:::::::::::::2. At replication, a genetic sequence - a base pair, a gene, a chromosone, or anything in between - is replicated and reinserted in the parent genetic code. This is a mutation because DNA is not "supposed" to do that. Happens remarkably often though, just that in most cases the resulting DNA is so horribly screwed up that it is useless and doesn't survive, either because any resulting offspring is unviable but more often because the mutated DNA in the cell doesn't even get that far. On occasion, however, like any other mutation, the change is viable and even beneficial and natural selection then plays its part as above. The duplicated DNA then mutates over time to become different to the original (as it does too) and, bingo, you have '''new DNA information''' producing new proteins. This is called duplication mutation and is most common in sexual reproduction and as such is the primary method for increasing genetic information in animals. (A similar process primarily in plants using asexual reproduction is called poliploidy (sp?) and an artificial version of this is the technique used by many plant breeders to create new species of flowering plants.)
:::::::::::::3. Similar to above but foreign DNA or RNA being inserted by things like retro-viruses. Again the same principles as above apply. If the new inserted genetic information is beneficial (and lucky) then natural selection will ensure its survival. Again, '''new information'''.
::::::::::::Now, these are not examples just mechanisms.
::::::::::::But there are examples that have been seen to happen (rather than deduced much like a detective will deduce the details of a crime even though he hasn't seen it happen.) The most common known examples are the result of studies on things like antibiotic resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects. In most cases, the mutations are simple changes in protein manufacture - a gene mutates slightly and ends up manufacturing a slightly different protein, i.e. type 1 listed above - no new genetic information. But there are cases where type 2 mutation has been documented, i.e. new proteins in addition to the original proteins being produced resulting in a new ability or feature - '''new genetic information'''. For documented experimental examples, read ''Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution'' by Alexander Bell.
::::::::::::Philip, I'm pretty sure that none of this will convince you of anything - the Creationists' claim that evolution can't create new genetic information is well established - but it's interesting to have these conversations nonetheless. I suppose my point is simply that the relevant question posed to Dawkins can be answered, has been answered and there are many examples of increases of genetic information through mutation. That you will dismiss them is not unexpected :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:29, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: The sponsor wasn't "concealed" any more than the producer's middle name was concealed. Not mentioning something is not the same as concealing it, so your argument for deception is false.
::::::::::::::The producer's middle name wasn't relevant. The fact that these people were YECs and knew that Dawkins wouldn't interview with them if he had known ''is'' relevant. They were deceiving him and any reasonable person could see that. Whether it was justified is another matter and is perhaps a perfectly valid POV. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Claiming that it was deceitful is implying that they did something wrong, whereas now you acknowledge that it may have been justified. If so, they did nothing wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So if it's not merely a story, who saw the mutations that caused the varieties of the haemoglobin molecule?
::::::::::::::The mutations that caused the advent of haemoglobin have been deduced by study, much like a detective can deduce "fact" in a crime that he hasn't seen. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: The detective tries to figure out ''how'' the crime occurred, but that there was a crime to investigate is not disputed. In the case of haemoglobin, you (quoting Dawkins) are trying to explain how something occurred without first establishing that it ''did'' occur. That it occurred is ''assumed'', based on the idea of evolution. An alternative explanation is that God created the various versions of haemoglobin that way. The question was for an example of a mutation that could be seen to increase the genetic information, so what is offered is a story about how some information came about by mutation ''when we don't even know that a mutation did occur''! So how is it an example of a mutation ''being seen'' to increase the genetic information? Simple. It isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: The issue is not mutations per se, or even beneficial mutations, but ''information-gaining'' mutations.
::::::::::::: "''The duplicated DNA then mutates over time to become different to the original (as it does too) and, bingo, you have '''new DNA information''' ...''": No, the observational evidence is that these mutations (if not neutral) ''destroy'' information. Again, you are simply repeating the evolutionary story, not providing evidence nor a logical argument.
::::::::::::::No, the observational evidence that you can read in the studies described in the book I mentioned does not show the destruction of information. The evidence is there and it is very logical. You might still disagree with it but you should be aware that it exists. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Given that evolutionists (not just Dawkins) have so much trouble finding examples, and that creationary scientists (who stay on top of this sort of thing) have yet to acknowledge any, I am naturally enough sceptical. And given that I don't have that book, perhaps you could quote to me some examples that it has. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::The book in question is a large one. The relevant section is p.229-244.
::::::::::::: Of course I will dismiss it, when the argument keeps repeating the same old canards, that mutations are my definition new information, or duplication is new information (it's not, it's the same information repeated), that a beneficial mutation is new information (despite the examples of information-destroying mutations sometimes being beneficial).
::::::::::::::That mutations are by definition new information is ''not'' an "old canard" that is repeated. Most, the vast majority even, of mutations do indeed destroy information. Or rather they make the information worthless. But new information is created when a duplication of the original then mutates in its turn. So you have the original genetic code ''and'' a mutation of it. If both genes remain useful, then natural selection will indeed have created more useful genetic information and it is this process that these studies demonstrate. Live. With documented evidence. And there my friend I will (probably) probably leave it. I don't think we'll get any further. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: How does a mutation, which by your own admission normally destroy information, somehow miraculously create it when it is mutating a copy rather than the original? (And even though you here admit that mutations are generally harmful, I've often had people tell me that any mutation, by ''changing'' the DNA, is therefore creating new information. Someone said as much to me here on Conservapedia in the last few days or so.) Your logic that both genes remaining useful constitutes new information is invalid. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::There's no miracle. I didn't say that it creates information when the copy mutates rather than the original. Are you willfully misunderstanding me? Either can mutate, most likely both. Either or both genes, the copy and the original, are then different to the original gene. If those mutations are then useful, then mutation has caused new information. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from having too many people say to you that all mutation creates new information. Technically, it probably does. If you change a comma to a fullstop in a Word document (an analogy to the simplest form of genetic mutation) then that information is indeed new. Of course, the original information is destroyed by being replaced so the net gain is zero. But we're not talking about that. To take the Word analogy further, the duplication mutation is more akin to C&Ping a whole paragraph (gene), both of which then have some of their punctuation or letters changed. Neither paragraph means the same as the original and therefore the document contains new information.
::::::::::::::::But I said I would leave it there, so I will or I'll get blocked for 90/10 violation :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::: It is simply not true that if the mutation is useful, then there is new information. If a mutation causes a beetle on a windy island to not develop wings, it is useful because it will not be blown off the island into the sea and drown. The mutation is useful, but it is a corruption of existing information, not new information. This is true regardless of whether it occurs in the original or a copy. Changing a comma to a full stop in a Word document does not create new information. It does not convey any new meaning that wasn't there before. The only thing it does is create a grammatical ''error'', i.e. it corrupts the information. The same with copying a paragraph. Not only does neither paragraph mean the same, they become (to a greater or lesser degree) meaningless. Simply because it's changed doesn't mean that it tells you anything new. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, how about the Vpu complex in HIV1-M? Whereas your beetle example shows the loss of a structure to allow the survival of the organism the VPU shows the formation of a structure to ensure the increase of HIV1-M by allowing for improved infection. Also information is only new based on the context to which it is used. There are many dormant protein sequences (caused by point mutations, adenoviruses and copy errors) found in organism's genomes. They are not expressed unless a frame shift happens or some other reading frame error occurs. Most of these sequences do not encode for anything that is currently useful for the organism in its current state however some allow for adaptation, CCR5 is a prime example in Humans as it gives the human a resistance to HIV infection. Now CCR5 is only found in European decent humans, not in other subspecies of humans. With that being said, if HIV is allowed to spread and the non-European decent humans do not form some resistance like CCR5 then it is plausible to say that only those humans with CCR5 will be able to pass on their genetic material in the face of a HIV pandemic. As such there would be a decrease in non-European decent humans thus changing the human species from one of a heterogeneous mixture to that of European decent humans. What would be lost phenotypic by this example, the epicanthic fold, darker skin, brown eyes at birth and a host of other ethic differences not associated with Europeans. As you can see by this example something like this could change what would be perceived as the human race into something different. This is how evolution works, a change occurs that allows for an increase of the organisms genetic material (and traits) into the population thus causing a shift of genetic information of the population and therefore a shift in genetic traits. The point is that the mutation has to be put in perspective with the environment to account for evolution, not just if it creates new information or not.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: I've finally gotten around to giving an initial response to the HIV thing in [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]].
: CCR5 is an example of a beneficial ''loss-of-information'' mutation.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5390/] And as you indicate, it could (hypothetically) result in the loss of other genetic information; information carried only in non-European people groups. Losing information is not what evolution requires. If we keep ''losing'' information, we'll become extinct as natural selection removes us. In fact, as I understand it, this very point led a geneticist (John Sanford) to become a YEC because we are losing information, which is a case of going in the wrong direction for evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:20, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I am sorry Philip, I know that CCR5 is a loss of function mutation that was an example for how a loss of function mutation can cause evolution, however the HIV1-M part had nothing to do with CCR5 (what was on the Noah page), it was about HIV gaining a gated ion channel. This was an example of not only a gain of function mutation but a gain of a mechanism.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 08:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::It does if the two new paragraphs both makes sense. That's the analogy! (I'm sorry, I can't resist.) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:42, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::: "IF"! But will that happen? Try it. Randomly find a comma on this page, change it to a full stop, and tell me if the sentence is still grammatically correct and says something that it didn't previously say. Even try that a hundred times if you want. Do any of them make sense? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::Yes, it will happen. But probably not if you try it only 100 times. It's thousands, millions, billions of times. That's how the random process works. Only the viable changes (or no change) succeed.
::::::::::::::::::::That's how it works in ordinary mutation too, with no added information. But with a doubled genetic string, why wouldn't exactly the same process work? Random mutation changing the doubled original code but in different ways... with selection pressures favouring the fittest. Et voila - more information.
::::::::::::::::::::But then this isn't me saying this - it's professionals in the field saying this. It works, has been seen to work, and there is documented evidence of it working. But I suppose these professionals have a world view that leads them to these conclusions, right? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::::: So I notice that you didn't actually try the experiment. Not into the scientific method? No, trying it a thousand, million, or billion times won't make any difference—there's not that many commas on this page as potential candidates. And even if you took more pages and tried it more times, it's still not going to produce new information. And it's not true that only the viable (or neutral) changes succeed. Natural selection does tend to favour the beneficial ones, but doesn't comprehensively eliminate every detrimental mutation. If it did, we wouldn't have detrimental mutations surviving at all, yet we do. Other professionals say otherwise, and it has not been seen to work, and there is no documented evidence of it working. That's the point of the Dawkins video clip. So yes, it is their worldviews leading them to saying this, because it's not the evidence. And as I've said before, even if the odd information-gaining mutation was shown (as Able806 claims above), that one information-gaining mutation would be swamped by all the information-losing ones. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it should be pointed out that there has to be a loss of function for evolution to occur, as well as a gain of function. (We do have to keep in mind that a loss of function does not equate to a loss of genetic material, just that the function no longer works the same way). Let’s account for the genetic diversity of humans. Melanin concentrations being found higher in the human populations whose relatives are from areas closer to equator while people whose decedents are from further from the equator you find lower concentrations. Is this a loss or a gain of function? The regulation of melanin is partially due to the SLC24A5 gene, which is thought to be of European origin. As such this gene down regulates melanin production. It does not stop production just slows it. So would this be a loss of information or a gain of information? Loss of function or gain of function? This is why the argument of new information and gain of function can be folly, as time progresses we find more and more of these genetic abnormalities and are able to trace their origins. As I stated above it is important that there are loss of function with gain of function mutations for evolution to occur, without a loss of function we would still be cold blooded.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:16, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::As I beleive it has been pointed out (or attemtpted to be pointed out), the use of the phrase "new information" in the question is what really causes the problems. This is a phrase used by creationists that has no simple solid definition in a scientific sense when used to discuss these types of evolutionary issues. Therefore, if is basically impossible to give an example, as you keep demanding, that will be accepted because the creationist will consistently either claim that it doesn't meet the "new information" criteria for some reason, or, in the case of examples already provided here relative to viruses for example, they will fall back on the "oh thats MICROevolution, its not the same". From an Occam's Razor perspective, I would tend to think the simplest definition of "new information" is the gaining of a new trait or ability that an organism did not previously had. Even if you want to restric this to a "beneficial" change, examples do exist and have been provided. The simplest I can personally think of is a virus that suddenly gains the ability to affect a new species, such as Bird Flu mutating to infect humans. This is certainly new ability, and certainly beneficial to the survival of the virus, yet I'm sure I'll be told my this either doesn't count as "new information" or that it is microevolution and thus not valid... The problem of course is that Evolution as a Theory doesn't predict that the large scale changes that creationists want to see examples of will occur over an observable period of time with respect to complex organisms such as mammals, which is why it is a theory and will remain a theory until such time as scientific observation has occured long enough to find confirmation of the theory. But it is still a scientifc theory with elements that are testable and falsifiable, unlike creationism which is no more scientific, testible, or falsifiable than Last Tuesdayism. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''This is a phrase ... that has no simple solid definition in a scientific sense when used to discuss these types of evolutionary issues.''": It isn't? How come?
::::::::::: "''in the case of examples already provided here relative to viruses for example, they will fall back on the "oh thats MICROevolution, its not the same".''": No, I wouldn't use that argument. It's not the size of the change that's important, but the direction[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/].
::::::::::: "''I would tend to think the simplest definition of "new information" is the gaining of a new trait or ability that an organism did not previously had.''": In a general sense, that is correct, but not precise enough. If a truck with a speed limiting device limiting it to 100 kph gains the "new ability" to go faster than 100 kph due to a fault in the speed limiting device, that's not the sort of change that we are talking about. Similarly with living things, there are quite a few documented examples where living things have "gained an ability" because of a ''loss'' of genetic information, such as the bacteria that have become resistant to penicillin, which is normally taken in by the bacteria's mechanism for taking in nutrients (or something like that; this is from memory) developing a defect which means that it can't take in as much. Although the bacteria is now "less fit" in most environments, it has "gained" the ability to survive penicillin. But this is a ''downward'' change, not an ''upward'' chance as required by goo-to-you evolution.
::::::::::: "''The problem of course is that Evolution ... doesn't predict that the large scale changes that creationists want to see ...''": As I've just explained, it's not the size of the change that's important, but the direction.
::::::::::: "''...which is why it is a theory and will remain a theory until such time as scientific observation has occured long enough to find confirmation of the theory...''": Evolutionists would disagree with you about your use of the term "theory" (they argue that evolution is a ''fact''), but thanks for acknowledging that ''the evidence is not yet in'', and it is therefore alternatives (such as creation) have not yet been excluded.
::::::::::: "''..creationism ... is no more scientific, testible, or falsifiable than Last Tuesdayism''": Utter, complete rubbish.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Despite your attempt to dismiss it as "utter, complete rubbish", that fact remains that the nature of creationism is no different than that of Last Tuesdayism, both are as "defendable" or "falisifiable" which is to say, they are not. They are assertions, not theories. Your dismissal of the term thoery is once again a tired YEC tactic as well. Science admits that absolute proof is not there, but beleive the evidence for the basic theory is strong. The same can not be said for creationism, despite your eloquents spinning of facts and twisting of words. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 07:43, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Despite you restating your assertion, it is still false. I have in the last few hours posted in this talk page that creationists have made falsifiable predictions which have been tested and found true. And [[falsifiability of evolution|evolution itself is unfalsifiable]]. I didn't dismiss the term "theory". I disputed ''your use of it''. See my very recent post in the "Evolution is a Theory" section below. I said that evolutionists call it a "fact" because [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html they do].
::::::::::::: "''The same can not be said for creationism, despite your eloquents spinning of facts and twisting of words''": What "spinning of facts and twisting of words"?
::::::::::::: And you didn't answer the questions at the start of my last post that you are replying to.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I assume you mean these questions:

This is a phrase ... that has no simple solid definition in a scientific sense when used to discuss these types of evolutionary issues.": It isn't? How come?

I guess I'd have thought that was self evident given this entire debate... the shear number of analogies that are being thrown about to try and explain what "new information" means just highlights the fact it has no easily defined meaning. You claim my simplification of the phrase is "imprecise", well, then the term itself is more so. Let me see if I follow your current definition then. "New Information" means: Gaining a new, useful, advantageous ability through the gaining of new genetic material? This is what I mean... everytime I try to talk with anyone who uses the "new information" tactic they keep tacking on caveats to argue against any examples given. You are attempting to frame the debate in your own terms alone. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: The number of analogies is more likely due to this concept being foreign to evolutionists, so it needs a lot of explaining. But it has been sufficiently well defined, and I'm not framing it in my terms, but in the terms that [[information]] experts have framed it in (well, that's my intention; I hope I'm doing that successfully). The problem, I suggest, is that you have not read up on information theory enough to understand it, so people like me have to keep improving your knowledge. A good book on the topic is ''In the Beginning was Information'', by Werner Gitt. He's also written an [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 article] on the topic. You might find [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947/ this] useful also. And if you really do want to study up on this, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3012/ this list] of articles will have more useful, umm, ''information''. Your latest attempt at a definition is pretty close, although I'd say that the "new useful, advantageous ability" is the ''result'' of the new information, not the definition of it.
: Thanks for answering that question. Now perhaps you could answer the one near the end of my previous post to you, about your claim about me spinning fact and twisting words.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:04, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::Sorry for having taken a small break from this discussion, but I have to wag my finger at some of you, and not just Philip, for a rather colloquial, inconsistent use of the word information. And if you change the meaning of the words that often, you might argue for anything.
::So, information, according to Philip's chosen definition has 5 levels. The first is the size of the string, second the syntax, third semantics, fourth context, fifth purpose.
::*DNA is not information under this definition. Sure it is a sequence. It has syntax, which is determined by whether it can be read by the cell. It has no semantics other than the functional effect that the proteins have that are produced through reading/transcribing it. There is no external semantics. As far as I know there is little context, the same genome will always result in the same proteins. If there is any context at all, then it is defined by biochemistry. And there is certainly no purpose. DNA is a string, with a certain format, and reading it with result in a certain function. That is about it.
::* Real information is information, regardless of whether it is true or not. "Bus 380 goes to the beach" is information, even if it is wrong. Applied to dna this means, that even if a certain mutation has negative effects for the animal, it is still information. Bad information is information too. Dna that results in autism is information, too, because it tells how to make autism.
::* It is not always possible to rank information. "The Indian diner burns down", and the "Bus 380 goes to the beach", do not have the same amount of information, but an incomparable amount of information, if we ignore the simple measure of counting bits.
::* A bug loosing his ability to fly might loose it because he looses some dna, but he might also lose the ability because of a switch that disables the dna. Just loosing the ability doesn't mean that you lose information. "Do not go to the beach" is information too, and it doesn't mean that you lost information about how to get there.
::* This also shows that the information bit is not too important. If the beetle lost it capabilities because of an added switch, or because of the loss of a substring, in the end the functionality matters.
::* Duplicating information might not add information according to information theory, but duplicating strings does. "There are 2 cockroaches in your kitchen", vs "There are 22222222 cockroaches in your kitchen". So duplicating syntax, may add semantics.
::* Information doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. "Bus 381 go to de beach" might get you to the right bus stop, even if it not exactly correct.
::* Finally, I want to reiterate the first point. DNA is not information, it is a sequence, that has some syntax, and some function. If you use the word "information" you need to be careful to not confuse it with "real" information, that has more than that. This is actually the problem with creationist arguments. Stating that dna is a sequence that has syntax and function, which is true, and then slip in a definition that also includes purpose, and even more, which is not true. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:14, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::We should split this item. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Note from an interested outsider with negligible biology background, so I ask for patience if I'm bumbling Bio 101 here: it seems that natural selection has a role to play here as well. Naively, I'd guess that mutation provides the mechanism by which information content is updated so to speak, but natural selection is the non-random process that ensures useful new information stays around, i.e. is passed to subsequent generations.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 11:51, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: Essentially, you are correct. Evolution requires that mutations provide the new genetic information that natural selection selects from. The existence of natural selection is not in dispute. The ability of mutations to provide the new genetic information is in dispute. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Please unlock or link to [[Creation-evolution controversy]] ==

Please unlock or link to [[Creation-evolution controversy]]. Thanks. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 00:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)
: Link provided. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Not relating to the above, but maybe some of the oldest discussion could be archived - now this very interesting talk page is quite heavy for older computers and slow connections. --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:39, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I mean this Talk:Theory of Evolution page, not Creation-evolution controversy! --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:41, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Done. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 13:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Extreme Bias in Article ==

After reading this article, I have seen gross amounts of bias. While it is acceptable and necessary to discuss criticism of the theory of evolution, it is also necessary to discuss the response of evolutionists. Furthermore, it is important to note that most mainstream scientists do support evolution. I feel that this page needs to be renamed "[[Criticism of Evolution]]" with an article about debate over the theory including the information in this article and information in response to this article. Every section contains only quotes by [[opponents of evolution]] and is not accurate in its representation. Then, this article needs a COMPLETE rewrite, focusing on what the theory of evolution is and all that supports it. There clearly is [[evidence supporting evolution]], and to give Conservapedia fair coverage on this controversial topic, all sides must be supported, not just the ideas of some.--[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 11:20, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I believe the intention of Conservapedia is to purposefully have the article slanted, unfortunately, your request will fall on very deaf ears. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I disagree with most of your answer.

::If there is bias, please point it out. Is it the overall tone, or are there specific biased points?

::If evolutionists have responded to any point, we can link to that - or just have an [[Evolution controversy]] page where pro and con is laid out nice and neat.

::I haven't read the article lately, but if it fails to mention that 95% of scientists accept the theory, then that is a indeed a problem. (Hey, I'm listening, okay?)

::One place I agree is that this article cannot replace an [[Opposition to evolution]] article. However, please bear in mind that [[Evolution and creation]] are sometimes difficult to describe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:::The best way to see if an article is biased is to look at what is the main point or main question this article is discussing. This article best answers the question: "What evidence has been proposed to refute evolution?" Therefore, it is only proper for there to be an equal amount of space answering the question "What evidence has been used to support evolution?" including information such as the fossil record. Furthermore, there are specfic instances that are not true, for example, that evolution is strongly associated with atheism.

Ed, I like your idea of an [[Evolution controversy]] page. There are several examples in the article that are mistaken, not that the authors of the article are incorrect, but better research has been presented. I can make a list with the examples after I am done with the pages I am currently working on (may be a while since I edit mostly during the week and the articles I am working on deal with chemistry and biochemistry).--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You know, it would be heartening if people who are concerned about bias in this article were as concerned about bias in Wikipedia's treatment of this and related topics. Their ID article, for example, last I looked, was not about ID, but about what was supposedly wrong with ID. And that bias was despite numerous people pointing out the bias. Then there's the myriad of articles on Wikipedia, such as the one about birds, that simply assume evolution to be true, so don't even mention that there is an alternative view. Then there's the bias of the mainstream science journals, that won't allow anything to question evolution. And the bias of the education system, that won't allow anything questioning evolution to be taught, even getting courts to enforce that bias (apparently the evidence is not enough). Yet despite these major examples of bias, people get concerned about bias in ''this'' article! Methinks someone has their priorities wrong, or simply don't like the problems of their own view being publicised. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:27, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Whereas I agree about the bias in Wikipedia's entries I believe we should focus in our backyard first. About the bias in science publications, I am afraid that you are mistaken Philip. If the author is submitting sound research (as in it provides a basis for their hypothesis with a proposed mechanism) it will be published. The scientific community governs itself by researching the research. Take for example the claims of cold fusion being produced in a lab. Three other labs attempted to perform the same protocol and did not achieve the same results. This lead to questioning of the original researcher which eventually lead to the revocation of the claim. Not that this only occurs in the finite sciences it happens with biology and biochemists as well. Michael Behe was confronted by many virologists about his claims in his book the edge of evolution in regards to HIV mutation. He admitted his mistake and moved on. I worked on a review staff for Cell. You would be amazed at what is submitted to be published. Most of which does not use sound scientific judgment and allows for to many variables to test its validity. Those articles are tossed while the articles that offer sound research and supported hypothesis are published. I know that the scientific community has been leery of the ID issue because of the highly publized wedge strategy and that ID was inserting itself into the secondary school level without a full review in the college level. This has caused many scientists to ask for mechanisms of how the designer manipulated the design. For now ID uses the same mechanisms that evolution uses just with the added caveat that a designer was involved. The only real way to separate the two is to provide some method for which the designer manipulated the changes. At this time ID research has provided nothing support their claims.
As far as courts go, I believe that science should stay in its corner and religion should stay in its own corner. When people take school systems to court to prevent them from teaching science on the basis of their personal religion I believe that to be petty as I also believe that for science to take school boards to court due to religion is petty as well. What irritates me is when a non-scientist is telling a scientist what science is and is not and also when a scientist is telling a pastor what religion is or is not.
In the US we are seeing a rapid decline in science standards as well as technology breakthroughs. Many people who work in the US as scientists are leaving for other countries due to politics and lack of funding. This is hurting the US because our economy is not based on manufacturing (which requires a lesser amount of technical ability) as much as it is based on technology and development. I truly believe that this polarization of religion and science to the degree that it is today is hurting both groups (people are exposed to religion when they are very little, it is not until they are in school do they truly begin to be exposed to science as such, more people are religious than scientific causing more to question science than religion.) The bible does not give all of the answers, nor does science, the difference is that science is still making discoveries while the bible is only adjusting its interpretation.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:::''"If the author is submitting sound research (as in if it provides a basis for their hypothesis with a proposed mechanism) it will be published. The scientific community governs itself by researching the research"'' The problem is that both creation and evolution are both accounts of what happened in the past, and are therefore equally (read barely if at all) testable by scientific means. The scientific community however has decided to accept one and reject the other. That is the problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 11:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
: "''If the author is submitting sound research (as in it provides a basis for their hypothesis with a proposed mechanism) it will be published.''": No, it won't. Various bodies have declared that creationism and Intelligent Design are by definition not science, and therefore won't be published. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is sound research.
: "''When people take school systems to court to prevent them from teaching science on the basis of their personal religion I believe that to be petty...''": In some cases, creationists or ID people have had legislation passed in an attempt to break the evolutionary monopoly. In other cases, school boards have decided without any legislation to do this. In both cases, it is the evolutionists who have taken the issue to court.
: "''What irritates me is when a non-scientist is telling a scientist what science is and is not and also when a scientist is telling a pastor what religion is or is not.''": I can understand that. But consider these points: Sometimes it is (creationary) ''scientists'' telling other scientists what science is about. So that's okay with you? Evolution and creation are really competing accounts of ''history'', i.e. what happened in the past. So what's wrong with a pastor, who has an infallible history (assuming for the moment that that's what the Bible is), telling a scientist that he has his ''history'' wrong? And what right therefore does a scientist have telling the pastor that his ''history'' is wrong?
: "''I truly believe that this polarization of religion and science to the degree that it is today is hurting both groups (people are exposed to religion when they are very little, it is not until they are in school do they truly begin to be exposed to science as such...''": On the other hand, even young children are exposed to—no, indoctrinated in—evolution and long ages via the media and the government school system. The only ones exposed to the alternative view of origins are ''some'' of those in Christian schools, ''some'' of those who attend church (and probably only to an extremely limited extent in most cases), and most of those who are homeschooled. And keep in mind that Christianity provides an ideological basis for science, as well as an historical framework for origins research, so those Christians should make good scientists. Which would be why so many early scientists were Christians, and why the most Christian nation on Earth has produced the most scientists. Now that the Christian worldview is under so much attack, the science is in decline, as you note.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, there has been no sound research submitted to substantiate the claim that they would not be allowed to publish. It is not the journals that make the claims that they would publish no research; it is the media-hype since it is assumed that ID is not scientific that the journals would not publish.
As for court cases, there are many in the US where religion brought science to court. The difference is that due to the separation of church and state the judges had to rule in science's favor or the issue did not come to trial. I lived in WV where there were several occurrences where a Baptist church brought a school board to court due to teaching sex education with birth-control.
I like your example about the scientist and pastor, which was excellent! I would not be able to reconcile it due to both sides having their own evidence to support their claims. I guess the only way to figure it out would be through experimentation. I guess that is were science is limited, it can only make stronger claims if the evidence is reproducible, at least in part.
One comment about the last paragraph, chemistry was developed in feudal china long before Christianity was involved, as well as astronomy was developed in the Americas before conolonization. As such the correlation about scientists being Christian may be due to social stigmas with religion at the time. I guess it would depend on what you would consider Christian. Many European scientists at that time attended church regularly, in body, but the question would be did they believe or just suffer the social stigma? That is something we can only know through autobiographies, unfortunately many of those scientists did not record their personal thoughts beyond their research.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)
: "''...there has been no sound research submitted to substantiate the claim that they would not be allowed to publish.''": What makes you think that?
: "''It is not the journals that make the claims that they would publish no research...''": The Journal of the Biological Society of Washington said that they would not publish ID articles, citing an AAAS resolution that ID was unscientific.
: "''As for court cases, there are many in the US where religion brought science to court.''": I'm not familiar with them, although I don't deny that there ''may'' be the odd one. Some examples please?
: "''The difference is that due to the separation of church and state the judges had to rule in science's favor or the issue did not come to trial.''": Which presupposes that creationism has no science, which is begging the question, and is improper anyway given that the separation of church and state was supposed to be freedom ''of'' religion, not freedom ''from'' religion.
: "''there were several occurrences where a Baptist church brought a school board to court due to teaching sex education with birth-control.''": Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Apart from the fact that we are talking about creation and ID vs. evolution, this is not even a case of a church disputing ''science'', but ''moral values''.
: "''Many European scientists at that time attended church regularly, ... but ... did they believe or just suffer the social stigma? ... many of those scientists did not record their personal thoughts beyond their research.''": Many did, and many made it clear that their science was based on their Christian views. Your claim is also denied by the views quoted in [[Natural science#Beginnings]], which specifically say that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally associated with it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:18, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Vaccine

2008-01-22T04:19:36Z

StephenW: Glezen 2004 (this may be a good reference, but it was published in a journal on heart medicine...hmn....sounds fishy, like sternberg peer review fishy)

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]," whereby humans are equated with chattel. When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T04:17:55Z

StephenW: /* Sources */ In order

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]," whereby humans are equated with chattel. When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 ''Control of Influenza'']</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T04:17:30Z

StephenW: /* Sources */ harvardizing Glezen reference

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]," whereby humans are equated with chattel. When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 ''Control of Influenza'']</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21


[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T04:06:16Z

StephenW: Adding sources

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]," whereby humans are equated with chattel. When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 ''Control of Influenza'']</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T04:03:04Z

StephenW: /* Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination */ Removing liberal pro-vaccine commentary, fixing ref, still requesting night time edit privs

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]," whereby humans are equated with chattel. When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 ''Control of Influenza'']</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T03:59:19Z

StephenW: /* Adverse Reactions */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==

An important concept in vaccine planning is [[herd immunity]]. This is the idea that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. This is a fairly straight forward concept; if 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 Control of Influenza </ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-01-22T03:58:58Z

StephenW: /* Adverse Reactions */ {{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program}} these sorts of things will improve ranking at google

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==

An important concept in vaccine planning is [[herd immunity]]. This is the idea that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. This is a fairly straight forward concept; if 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 Control of Influenza </ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Template:See also

2008-01-22T03:58:00Z

StephenW: See also template

:''See also: {{#if:{{{1|}}} |[[:{{{1}}}|{{{l1|{{{1}}}}}}]] |'''Error: [[Template:See also|Template must be given at least one article name]]'''
}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }} [[:{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{#if:{{{7|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{6}}}|{{{l6|{{{6}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{7|}}}|{{#if:{{{8|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{7}}}|{{{l7|{{{7}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{8|}}}|{{#if:{{{9|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{8}}}|{{{l8|{{{8}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{9|}}}|{{#if:{{{10|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{9}}}|{{{l9|{{{9}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{10|}}}|{{#if:{{{11|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{10}}}|{{{l10|{{{10}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{11|}}}|{{#if:{{{12|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{11}}}|{{{l11|{{{11}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{12|}}}|{{#if:{{{13|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{12}}}|{{{l12|{{{12}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{13|}}}|{{#if:{{{14|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{13}}}|{{{l13|{{{13}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{14|}}}|{{#if:{{{15|}}}|, |, and }} [[:{{{14}}}|{{{l14|{{{14}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{15|}}}|, and [[:{{{15}}}|{{{l15|{{{15}}}}}}]]
}}{{#if:{{{16|}}}| — ''' Error: [[Template:See also|Too many links specified (maximum is 15)]]'''
}}''

Vaccine

2008-01-22T03:54:42Z

StephenW: See also Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Avian flu vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection.The other three types of vaccines can cause illness, but this is an allergic response not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

Since the adoption of vaccination, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

== Influenza Vaccine ==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==

An important concept in vaccine planning is [[herd immunity]]. This is the idea that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. This is a fairly straight forward concept; if 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated. <ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431 Control of Influenza </ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]