Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Urban67

2008-04-27T18:34:26Z

Urban67: ho hum

Hi. I consider myself a moderate, but I'm conservative on many issues including intelligent design and abortion. I am also a Christian. And btw, I unfortunately live with bipolar disorder, so if act a little crazy at times, blame it on my genetics.

Talk:Abortion

2008-04-26T21:34:42Z

Urban67: cmt

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Image==

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

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

2008-04-26T20:50:01Z

Urban67: cmt

{{debate-politics}}

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

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

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

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

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

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

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

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

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

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

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

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

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

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

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

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

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

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

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

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

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Urban67

2008-04-26T18:20:48Z

Urban67:

Hi. I consider myself a moderate, but I'm conservative on many issues including intelligent design and abortion. I am also a Christian.

User:Urban67

2008-04-26T18:20:16Z

Urban67: New page: Hi. I consider myself a moderate, but I'm conservative on many issues including intelligent design and abortion.

Hi. I consider myself a moderate, but I'm conservative on many issues including intelligent design and abortion.