text:
Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005

The Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005 was the third edition of the annual Junior Eurovision Song Contest for young singers aged 8 to 15. On 26 November 2005, the contest was broadcast live from the Ethias Arena in Hasselt, Belgium, in a joint effort by the national broadcasters Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (VRT) and Radio télévision belge de la communauté française (RTBF), in co-operation with the European Broadcasting Union. Marcel Vanthilt and Maureen Louys hosted the event.

The show was not only broadcast live in the competing countries, it was also available on satellite worldwide and the Australian television channel SBS who acquired the rights to broadcast the show one month later. The theme of the show was Let's Get Loud, standing for the new generation on the stage. The show was watched by 8,500 people in the arena, including the Belgian Prince Laurent and 20–25 million people around Europe.

was the winner of this edition, with 10-year-old Ksenia Sitnik singing her song "My vmeste". Last year's winner finished in second place, with 2004 hosts  coming third.

Bidding phase and host selection
Following the hosting problems for the 2004 edition, the location of the subsequent contests were appointed by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), following a bidding process with broadcasters from the participating countries. Belgium was therefore the first country to successfully bid for the rights to host the contest in 2005.

In November 2003, there were reports about the possibility to the contest take place in the Netherlands. In the same month, Jeroen Depraetere, coordinator of the show on behalf of the EBU, announced that five countries had expressed their willingness to organise the competition. Belgium won the right to hold the contest in March 2004 over five other countries including Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT) of Croatia and AVRO of the Netherlands.

In November 2004, it was announced that the Flemish city of Hasselt would host the contest at the Ethias Arena. The date of the contest had been confirmed shortly after the contest in Lillehammer.

Venue
The Ethias Arena is the largest multi-purpose arena in Hasselt, Belgium which is used for music concerts, sports (tennis, indoor cycling, jumping, etc.) and other large events. The arena opened in September 2004 and holds up to 21,600 people depending on the event. The venue is a part of the Grenslandhallen and has a surface of 13,600 square meters (44,619 square feet). In 2015, it hosted the 2015 European Championship in darts, a Professional Darts Corporation event. The venue would later be renamed to Trixxo Arena.

Participating countries
On May 2005, the EBU released the initial list of participants with 17 competing countries. Russia and Serbia and Montenegro made their debut, France and Switzerland withdrew after debuting in the 2004 contest, while Poland withdrew after debuting in the 2003 contest.

Although initially confirmed as a participating country, Cyprus withdrew from the contest on 13 October 2005 due to internal reasons - allegations of plagiarism regarding the selected song ("Tsirko" by Rena Kiriakidi) had been made. However, Cypriot viewers were able to watch the show and vote.

Prior to the event, a compilation album featuring all the songs from the 2005 contest, along with karaoke versions, was put together by the European Broadcasting Union and released by Universal Music Group in November 2005.

Presenters
On 13 October 2005, it was revealed during a presentation that Maureen Louys of RTBF and Marcel Vanthilt of VRT would be the hosts of the contest.

Running order
The selection of the running order was conducted in two phases. In the first, which took place at the City Hall of Hasselt, there were three draws: one to select the countries that would perform first and last in the contest; a second to decide on the position of the host country; and a third to divided the 14 remaining countries into two groups of five (for the positions 2–6 and 7–11) and one of three (for the positions 13–15).

The second phase of the selection of the running order was conducted by the JESC Steering Group. The group decided on the final positions of the countries within the three groups, taking into account, for example, that no three ballads or no three songs from one European region should be performed consecutively in the contest. This system was already applied last year for the festival in Lillehammer.

Voting
Voting was the same as the traditional voting system, with each country voting for their 10 favorite songs, with scores of 1–8, 10 and 12. It was the first time points 1 through 5 had automatically appeared on the scoreboard, with spokesmen reporting only points 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12. The presenters started off by giving all contestants 12 points.

Contest overview
The event took place on 26 November 2005 at 20:15 CET. Sixteen countries participated, with the running order published on October 2005. All the countries competing were eligible to vote by televote. Belarus won with 149 points, with Spain, Norway, Denmark, and Romania, completing the top five. Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Malta occupied the bottom five positions.

The show was opened by a fireworks and bungee jumpers performance. The interval act included Vladik Myagkostupov from Cirque du Soleil gave a four-minute circus performance and 2004 winner María Isabel performing a medley of her winning entry "Antes muerta que sencilla" and new single "Pues Va A Ser Que No" from her second album Número 2. Isabel also presented the prize to the winner of the competition.

Spokespersons

 * 1)  – Stella Maria Koukkidi
 * 2)  – Yorgos Kotsougiannis
 * 3)  – Caroline Forsberg Thybo
 * 4)  – Nika Turković
 * 5)  – Beatrice Soare
 * 6)  – Vicky Gordon
 * 7)  – Halahen Zajden
 * 8)  – Roman Kerimov
 * 9)  – Vase Dokovski
 * 10)  – Giovanni Kemper
 * 11)  – Jovana Vukčević
 * 12)  – Kristiana Stirane
 * 13)  – Max Colombie
 * 14)  – Stephanie Bason
 * 15)  – Karoline Wendelborg
 * 16)  – Gonzalo Gutierrez Blanco
 * 17)  – Anton Lediaev

Detailed voting results
Despite withdrawing at a late stage, Cyprus was still permitted to vote in the contest.

When the British spokesperson based in the ITV2 studios in London, Vicky Gordon was about to give the UK televoting results, the scoreboard malfunctioned by showing all the scores compressed together, before the entire screen went black, only showing the EBU, VRT and RTBF logos, which meant that the computers had lost connection with the British broadcaster, although the spokesperson could still be heard. However, the results were announced as usual shortly afterwards.

12 points
Below is a summary of all 12 points received. All countries were given 12 points at the start of voting to ensure that no country finished with nul points.

Other countries
For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the EBU. The following active EBU members did not take part:

 * – Cyprus was originally going to participate in the 2005 contest, represented by Rena Kiriakidi's "Tsirko". However, it was later claimed to be plagiarised, and Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (CyBC), the national broadcaster, was forced to withdraw. However, they did not lose their broadcast and voting rights and still broadcast the show live.
 * – France, one of two debutants at the previous contest, and broadcaster France 3 turned down the offer to participate due to the following reasons:
 * Programming difficulties and restructuring within the channel
 * Very low viewing figures the previous year
 * No motivation to compete, with French Head of Delegation Bruno Berberes stating that "Too much Eurovision kills Eurovision"
 * – Georgia was one of the countries on the preliminary participation list for the 2005 contest. However, at the time, Georgian Public Broadcasting (GPB) was not a full member of the EBU and would become a member on the 6th of July, but as this was one week after the participation confirmation deadline, meaning Georgia had to withdraw and to wait out their participation until 2007.
 * – Just like the 2004 contest, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) was said to be debuting at the 2005 contest. However, no official statement was released by the broadcaster and they ended up not participating.
 * – Lithuania, like Georgia, was one of the countries on the preliminary list for 2005. But, Lithuania withdrew for unspecified reasons. They would debut in 2007.
 * – Monaco and Monegasque broadcaster TMC expressed an interest in participating. However, plans never came to fruition due to scheduling problems and harsh citizenship laws and thus they never participated.
 * – Despite signing a 3-year contract with the EBU, Polish broadcaster Telewizja Polska (TVP) announced they would withdraw due to lack of interest and poor results. They would eventually return in 2016.
 * – Even though Portugal did not participate, public broadcaster Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) broadcast the contest delayed and confirmed they would debut in 2006.
 * – Switzerland, one of two debutants in 2004, and the Swiss-Italian broadcaster RTSI turned down the offer to participate for the following reasons:
 * Financial difficulties
 * Lack of interest and financial support from the other multilingual broadcasters of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG SSR)
 * – Ukraine, like Lithuania, was on the preliminary list of participation for 2005. But, they pulled out before the night and had to wait until the next year to debut.

title: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005


text:
Regions of Eastern Finland

The former Province of Eastern Finland in Finland was divided into three regions, 11 districts and 49 municipalities.

North Karelia

 * Joensuu District
 * Ilomantsi (Ilomants)
 * Joensuu
 * Juuka (Juga)
 * Kontiolahti (Kontiolax)
 * Liperi (Libelits)
 * Outokumpu
 * Polvijärvi
 * Heinävesi
 * Central Karelia
 * Kitee (Kides)
 * Rääkkylä
 * Tohmajärvi
 * Pielisen Karelia
 * Lieksa
 * Nurmes
 * Valtimo

Northern Savonia

 * Upper Savonia
 * Iisalmi (Idensalmi)
 * Keitele
 * Kiuruvesi
 * Lapinlahti
 * Pielavesi
 * Sonkajärvi
 * Vieremä
 * Kuopio District
 * Kuopio
 * Maaninka
 * Siilinjärvi
 * North-Eastern Savonia
 * Juankoski
 * Kaavi
 * Rautavaara
 * Tuusniemi
 * Varkaus District
 * Kangaslampi
 * Leppävirta
 * Varkaus
 * Joroinen (Jorois)
 * Inner Savonia
 * Rautalampi
 * Suonenjoki
 * Tervo
 * Vesanto

Southern Savonia

 * Mikkeli District
 * Hirvensalmi
 * Kangasniemi
 * Mikkeli (S:t Michel)
 * Mäntyharju
 * Pertunmaa
 * Ristiina (Kristina)
 * Puumala
 * Pieksämäki District
 * Pieksämäki
 * Juva
 * Savonlinna District
 * Enonkoski
 * Rantasalmi
 * Savonlinna (Nyslott)
 * Sulkava

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Regions of Eastern Finland


text:
Regions of Western Finland

The former Province of Western Finland in Finland was divided into seven regions, 34 districts and 192 municipalities.

Regions

 * Southern Ostrobothnia (Etelä-Pohjanmaa/ Södra Österbotten)
 * Ostrobothnia (Österbotten/ Pohjanmaa)
 * Pirkanmaa (Pirkanmaa/ Birkaland)
 * Satakunta (Satakunta/ Satakunta)
 * Central Ostrobothnia (Keski-Pohjanmaa/ Mellersta Österbotten)
 * Central Finland (Keski-Suomi/ Mellersta Finland)
 * Southwest Finland (Varsinais-Suomi/ Egentliga Finland)

Southern Ostrobothnia

 * South-Eastern Bothnia
 * Isojoki (Storå)
 * Jurva
 * Karijoki (Bötom)
 * Kauhajoki
 * Teuva (Östermark)
 * Northern Seinänaapurit District
 * Ilmajoki (Ilmola)
 * Nurmo
 * Seinäjoki
 * Ylistaro
 * Southern Seinänaapurit District
 * Jalasjärvi
 * Kurikka
 * Peräseinäjoki
 * Kuusiokunnat District
 * Alavus (Alavo)
 * Kuortane
 * Lehtimäki
 * Soini
 * Töysä
 * Ähtäri (Etseri)
 * Härmänmaa District
 * Alahärmä
 * Kauhava
 * Lapua (Lappo)
 * Ylihärmä
 * Järviseutu District
 * Alajärvi
 * Evijärvi
 * Kortesjärvi
 * Lappajärvi
 * Vimpeli (Vindala)

Ostrobothnia Region

 * Kyrönmaa District
 * Isokyrö (Storkyro)
 * Laihia (Laihela)
 * Vähäkyrö (Lillkyro)
 * Vaasa District
 * Korsnäs
 * Malax (Maalahti)
 * Korsholm (Mustasaari)
 * Oravais (Oravainen)
 * Vaasa (Vasa)
 * Vörå-Maxmo (Vöyri-Maksamaa)
 * South-Eastern Bothnia Coastal District
 * Kaskinen (Kaskö)
 * Kristinestad (Kristiinankaupunki)
 * Närpes (Närpiö)
 * Jakobstad District
 * Kronoby (Kruunupyy)
 * Larsmo (Luoto)
 * Jakobstad (Pietarsaari)
 * Pedersöre (Pedersören kunta)
 * Nykarleby (Uusikaarlepyy)

Pirkanmaa Region

 * North Western Pirkanmaa
 * Hämeenkyrö (Tavastkyro)
 * Ikaalinen (Ikalis)
 * Kihniö
 * Parkano
 * South-Eastern Pirkanmaa
 * Kuhmalahti
 * Pälkäne
 * Southern Pirkanmaa
 * Akaa (Ackas)
 * Kylmäkoski
 * Urjala
 * Valkeakoski
 * Tampere District
 * Kangasala
 * Lempäälä
 * Nokia
 * Pirkkala (Birkala)
 * Tampere (Tammerfors)
 * Vesilahti
 * Ylöjärvi
 * South-Western Pirkanmaa
 * Mouhijärvi
 * Punkalaidun
 * Vammala
 * Äetsä
 * Upper Pirkanmaa
 * Juupajoki
 * Kuru
 * Mänttä
 * Orivesi
 * Ruovesi
 * Vilppula
 * Virrat (Virdois)

Satakunta Region

 * Rauma District
 * Eura
 * Eurajoki (Euraåminne)
 * Kiukainen (Kiukais)
 * Lappi
 * Rauma (Raumo)
 * South-Eastern Satakunta
 * Huittinen (Vittis)
 * Kokemäki (Kumo)
 * Köyliö (Kjulo)
 * Säkylä
 * Vampula
 * Pori District
 * Harjavalta
 * Luvia
 * Nakkila
 * Noormarkku (Norrmark)
 * Pomarkku (Påmark)
 * Pori (Björneborg)
 * Ulvila (Ulvsby)
 * Northern Satakunta
 * Honkajoki
 * Jämijärvi
 * Kankaanpää
 * Karvia
 * Kiikoinen
 * Lavia
 * Merikarvia (Sastmola)
 * Siikainen (Siikais)

Central Ostrobothnia Region

 * Kaustinen District
 * Halsua (Halso)
 * Kaustinen (Kaustby)
 * Lestijärvi
 * Perho
 * Toholampi
 * Ullava
 * Veteli (Vetil)
 * Kokkola District
 * Himanka (Himango)
 * Kannus
 * Kokkola (Karleby)
 * Kälviä (Kelviå)
 * Lohtaja (Lochteå)

Central Finland Region

 * Jyväskylä District
 * Jyväskylä
 * Jyväskylän maalaiskunta (Jyväskylä landskommun)
 * Laukaa (Laukas)
 * Muurame
 * Uurainen
 * South-Eastern Middle Finland
 * Hankasalmi
 * Joutsa
 * Leivonmäki
 * Luhanka
 * Toivakka
 * Keuruu District
 * Keuruu (Keuru)
 * Multia
 * Petäjävesi
 * Jämsä District
 * Jämsä
 * Jämsänkoski
 * Korpilahti
 * Kuhmoinen (Kuhmois)
 * Äänekoski District
 * Konnevesi
 * Äänekoski
 * Saarijärvi District
 * Kannonkoski
 * Karstula
 * Kivijärvi
 * Kyyjärvi
 * Pylkönmäki
 * Saarijärvi
 * Viitasaari District
 * Kinnula
 * Pihtipudas
 * Viitasaari

Southwest Finland Region

 * Åboland-Turunmaa
 * Dragsfjärd
 * Houtskär (Houtskari)
 * Iniö
 * Kimito (Kemiö)
 * Korpo (Korppoo)
 * Nagu (Nauvo)
 * Pargas (Parainen)
 * Västanfjärd
 * Salo District
 * Halikko
 * Kiikala
 * Kisko
 * Kuusjoki
 * Muurla
 * Perniö (Bjärnå)
 * Pertteli (S:t Bertils)
 * Salo
 * Somero
 * Suomusjärvi
 * Särkisalo (Finby)
 * Turku District
 * Askainen (Villnäs)
 * Kaarina (S:t Karins)
 * Lemu (Lemo)
 * Lieto (Lundo)
 * Masku
 * Merimasku
 * Naantali (Nådendal)
 * Nousiainen (Nousis)
 * Paimio (Pemar)
 * Piikkiö (Pikis)
 * Raisio (Reso)
 * Rusko
 * Rymättylä (Rimito)
 * Sauvo (Sagu)
 * Turku (Åbo)
 * Vahto
 * Velkua
 * Vakka-Suomi
 * Kustavi (Gustavs)
 * Laitila (Letala)
 * Mietoinen (Mietois)
 * Mynämäki (Virmo)
 * Pyhäranta
 * Taivassalo (Tövsala)
 * Uusikaupunki (Nystad)
 * Vehmaa (Vemo)
 * Loimaa District
 * Alastaro
 * Aura
 * Koski Tl (Koskis)
 * Loimaa
 * Marttila (S:t Mårtens)
 * Mellilä
 * Oripää
 * Pöytyä
 * Tarvasjoki
 * Yläne

title: Regions of Western Finland


text:
Talk:Non-return-to-zero

Proposed merge
I agree to the mege of the Non-return-to-zero, inverted data here on the condition of resolution of the disputes about the data there.--Mancini 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is useful to have such closely related topics on the smae page. The NRZ page isn't too long anyway and there is already some of the NRZI info on it.  -- Austin Murphy 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree There is no point in keeping it alone. A redirect will do.  mfx  Q&A 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree, they are two different codes, they should be referenced to each other under related topics, but not merged.

I also agree. -disgrutled EE student, 8 April 2007

Is this correct?

 * Taken from the article: "NRZ is used in the RS-232 serial protocol. Internal computer signals often use this code."

I don't believe this is correct. I was of the understanding that RS-232 used +12V to represent 0 and -12V to represent 1, and that was it. ...but at the same time, I don't want to post a correction because I could be mistaken.
 * According to my knowledge rs232 is not used for data encryption but only for the communication purposes beteen two devices it acts only as an controlled amplifier nothing else....
 * i know for sure NRZ is used in USB but in RS232 ????
 * NRZ (largely NRZ-L) is indeed used extensively in serial communications by network devices--Mancini 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been corrected, the "RS232 standard" is not a "protocol", it is just a definition of the voltage levels, typically used on old style modems, the control lines (as well as data) on the modems also use RS232 voltage levels. The "EIA RS232 standard" also defines short circuit currents and input impedances as well. Note that the "EIA RS232 standard" also requires a common wire, and all the signals are referred to that wire, this wire is usually physically connected to the chassis of the computer. Salbayeng (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Response to queries
Just to respond to some of the points raise above:

--Gadget1700 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * RS-232/EIA-232 does indeed use ±12V to represent data with no null level, and so would quality as an NRZ scheme.
 * The page currently states that the "transmitter and receiver lack the timing synchronization". This is only true of NRZ if it is used with an asynchronous communication, and so is really a feature of the timing scheme, not the data representation scheme.
 * Regarding "DC blocking": I suspect that the author of this line may be referring to the fact that in a typical digital electronic system, the components generating the 0V and +V (representing 0 and 1) are CMOS transistors, which have a very small leakage current when not changing state, and so don't allow current to flow when the data isn't changing. If that's what the author meant, then this comment is superfluous. Such circuits still generate heat when they switch, and data loss is, in any case, highly unlikely.
 * Re "DC Blocking", this wording no longer appears in the article, and what is there (in Jan 2019) is sufficiently correct. The comment by gadget1700 above is not the explanation or reason for DC blocking.
 * "DC blocking" means that the signal can still be transmitted by inserting a capacitor in series with the data line, by definition the capacitor "blocks" the DC). This is important in communication links because the signal can then be transmitted through a transformer, which improves the reliability of the network connection, "in the old days" when lightning hit one building it would fry all the serial port connections of computers / terminals in adjacent buildings. Now with 100baseT networks there is an isolating transformer at both ends with 2kV isolation.
 * Old style telegraph, telephone, teletype data connections all required a DC current (or voltage) to be supplied to indicate that the device was available on the other end of the line. (The DC voltage also supplied power from the exchange to the telegrapth or phone). The "break" button on desktop PC keyboards would "break" the DC connection on the serial line, (normally used to get attention at the other end, same as in those old B&W movies where someone jiggled the telephone cradle to talk to the receptionist).
 * A related concept is "galvanic isolation" this essentially means that two pieces of equipment don't have any wires between them that can carry DC current. With larger pieces of equipment, there is an existing galvanic connection, due to earth bonding of the metal frames to the electrical supply, adding an additional galvanic connection (though a data connection) can create earth loops, and cause lightning induced transients to go the wrong way.Salbayeng (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

NRZI
I'm not sure is image Image:Nrz-i.gif correct; in the article Non-return-to-zero, inverted there's another image and it's different. First image shows that zero is represented by change of level, while in the article we can read "One" is represented by change in level, "Zero" is represented by no change in level.. Best, 212.33.90.36

I changed the NRZI definition, it was wrong. The image is correct. Mojodaddy 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * According to AMPR there's a differenc between NRZI and NRZ-I
 * BTW: I'm trying to find the correct terms for the german article about this - so tell there also if you find a exact source -- de:Benutzer:mik81 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC) -- 82.149.82.142 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I thing I have an acceptable source. Look here: siemens
 * But convince yourself and search for "Nrz-i" nrzi inverted and get lots of hits
 * -- de:Benutzer:mik81 --82.149.82.142 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NRZI definition
In NRZ-I encoding a '1' bit is represented by 0 volts or +V volts depending on the previous level. The encoding of '1' depends  on the current state of the line If the previous voltage was 0 volts then the '1' bit will be represented by +V volts, however if the previous voltage was +V volts then the '1' bit will be represented by 0 volts. A '0' bit is represented by whatever voltage level was used previously.

This means that only a '1' bit can 'invert' the voltage, a '0' bit has no effect on the voltage, it remains the same as the previous bit whatever that voltage was. Rait 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative definitions
There do seem to be a number of different definitions of these data encoding schemes depending upon the manufacturer of the communications device. Back in the 1986 the Intel 82530 Technical User Manual had NRZ with a 1 as a high level and a 0 as a Low level, NRZI with a 1 as no change in level and 0 as a change in level. More recently the Motorola 68360 User Manual defines NRZ with a 1 as a high level and a 0 as a Low level, "NRZI Mark" with a 1 as no change in level and 0 as a change in level and "NRZI Space" with a 1 as a change in level and a 0 as no change in level. These do not entirely match what is on the main page. It is also worth noting that the hardware between the comms chip and the physical comms line may invert the signals - thus apparently inverting the output. Thus an encoded "high" will be represented by - 12volts and an encoded "low" by + 12volts on RS232 for example Commsguy (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In the article there is no clear definition of NRZ-Mark; worse, it does not give a clear answer to the difference between NRZ-Mark and NRZI. From the images the two seems to be the same. There's something mentioned about the clock, but it's not clear for me (even though I did learn this stuff some time ago). Hoemaco (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I get the feeling that there is no difference 116.90.140.41 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

unipolar-bipolar
unipolar says:

"One is represented by one physical level (such as a DC bias on the transmission line).

Zero is represented by another level (usually a negative voltage)."

bipolar says:

"One is represented by one physical level (usually a positive voltage).

Zero is represented by another level (usually a negative voltage)."

which are really the same. Also from the image and the mention of On-Off Keying I'd guess that the unipolar should be when one level is zero volts.

Also, it says

"Disadvantages of an on-off keying are the waste of power due to the transmitted DC level"

which I'd contest. The DC level is a problem due to the spectrum and possible high-pass media, but not because of the power. Actually OOK is the best for power saving, as there's no power transmitted for zeros, ie. roughly half the time.

Hoemaco (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nrz-s.gif misleading
The Nrz-s.gif has a bit pattern labeled on top as "101100011010". The misleading aspect is the first bit which should be unknown or a 'X'. The gif does not show the previous low state. Alternatively, the gif could be edited to omitted that first '1', leaving just a fraction of the first bit's end of low state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.114.194 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WHAT is, or is not, returning to zero?
I think this article would be less confusing if - somewhere - it was explained what property or value is - or isn't - "returning to zero."

We're told that "NRZ can refer to any of the following serialiser line codes.." but even the linked reference doesn't say whether the "line codes" are a string of bits or a sequence of physical values! I suppose we can rule out the former, as bits can be zero and (I guess) have no place in discussion about NRZ schemes, so presumably "NRZ" refers to the physically encoded sequence that corresponds to a sequence of bits. On the other hand, it's claimed that NRZ(L) is a sequence of "raw binary bits without any encoding" so (again) it's not clear what isn't returning to zero!

Without knowing anything about this topic, I'll guess that a binary sequence like {1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0} would be mapped to a voltage function of (say) V(t)

= +12v, for t in [0, 1) seconds          = +12v,  for t in [1, 2) seconds = -12v, for t in [2, 3) seconds          = -12v,  for t in [3, 4) seconds = +12v, for t in [4, 5) seconds          = -12v,  for t in [5, 6) seconds = -12v  for t in [6, 7) seconds assuming a transmission rate of 1 bit per second.

Is this right? The voltage doesn't "return to zero" so does this qualify as an NRZ voltage stream? (Of course, I haven't specified how the start and end of the bit sequence is encoded, but you could (say) set V(t) = 1 for t 7.)

I know a fair bit about computer science and electronics, but this article is such a mess that I can't even work out what it's try to say, let alone the details!

StandardPerson (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Mention variants in first paragraph
I think the first paragraph should have a simple sentence that mentions that there are many variants. Somerandomuser (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Randomized non-return-to-zero
didn't actually contain any information about Randomized non-return-to-zero. Another editor who tagged the section recently and I are not able to readuly find any sources on this topic. I am inclined to delete the section outright but we have a lot of redirects pointing to this section. No pages on Wikipedia are actually using these redirects so perhaps they should all be deleted with the section. ~Kvng (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Non-return-to-zero


text:
Seoraksan

Seoraksan, or Mount Sorak, is the highest mountain in the Taebaek mountain range in the Gangwon Province in eastern South Korea. It is located in the Seoraksan National Park, near the city of Sokcho. After the Hallasan volcano on Jeju Island and Jirisan in the south, Seoraksan is the third highest mountain in South Korea. The Daechongbong Peak (대청봉) of Seoraksan reaches 1,708 meters (5,603 feet). The mountain is sometimes considered the backbone of South Korea.

Geography
Seoraksan is divided into Naeseorak (Inner Seorak), Oaeseorak (Outer Seorak), and Namseorak (South Seorak).

Naeseorak (Inner Seorak)
The area belonging to Inje-gun in the northwest and Daecheongbong Peak is called Naeseolak,

Naeseorak features various valley views including Baekdam Valley, Gaya-dong Valley, Gugokdam Valley, Gugokdam Valley, 12 Seonnyeondang, Daeseung Falls and Yongajangseong Fortress. In addition to Cheonbul-dong Valley, it is easy to access Ulsan Rock, Gwongeumseong Fortress, Geumgang Cave, Biryong Falls, and Toseong Falls.

Oaeseorak (Outer Seorak)
Oaeseorak is the area belonging to Sokcho City towards the east. It features easier hiking courses and is one of the most accessed areas of the park.

In Oaeseorak, there is Towangseong Waterfall, the highest waterfall in South Korea.

Mountain geography, fauna and flora
It was designated as Natural Monument No.171 in 1965, and as a national park on Mount Seorak on March 24, 1970. In August 1982, UNESCO designated the area as a biosphere reserve.

Depending on the climate and characteristics, the mountain's biologic features have different ecosystems. While the inland climate is composed of gentle slopes and thick layers of soil, the forest is abundant and animal form is abundant, the outcropping is a marine climate, which causes the ground to steep and frequent visitors, which is less formal. Rare plants and animals live in the wild, including natural monuments such as mountain goats and semi-moon chest bears.

The biosphere of the Mt. Seolak is composed of different ecosystems according to climate and characteristics. It is an inland climate with gentle slopes and thick soil layers that are rich in forests and rich in animal habitats, while oyster shells have a marine climate with steep slopes and few visitors. It is home to rare animals and plants, including natural monuments such as goats and bears.

Outer Seorak District
The Yukdam waterfall and the Biryeong waterfall (비룡폭포) are located on the left side of the valley, about a forty-minute walk from the main car park. Ulsanbawi (울산바위) is a rock formation in the Seoraksan national park. The shape of Ulsanbawi is unique in the area. To reach the rocks you need to follow a hiking path and climb over 800 steps (it is actually 888 steps according to locals). On the way there, there are two temples and a spherical rock (Heundeulbawi, 흔들바위) which is located on top of a larger rock. This rock is about 5 meters (16 feet) high and can be moved with some effort. Thousands of people have already tried to push down Heundeulbawi, but nobody gets further than waggling the rock.

Legend of Ulsanbawi

According to the legend Ulsanbawi comes from the city of Ulsan in the south east of Korea. As Kumgangsan (금강산) was built, Ulsanbawi walked to the north as the representative of the city. Unfortunately Ulsanbawi arrived too late and there was no more room. Ulsanbawi was ashamed and slowly trudged back to the south. One evening the rock went to sleep in the Seorak area. Ulsanbawi felt it was so beautiful around there that it decided to stay for good.

At the end of the main valley is Biseondae, a rock platform in a stream. Above the stream is a difficult to reach cave, which offers clear views of the surrounding rock formations.

A bit farther from the entrance is the Valley of a Thousand Buddhas (천불동계곡), the primary valley of Seorak Mountain, also sometimes referred to as Seorak Valley. The valley was so named because the rock formations that line its sides resemble a line-up of Buddha statues.

Dinosaur Ridge
The Dinosaur Ridge (공룡능선) in Seoraksan extends from Madeungyeong to Sinseonam. It is one of Korea's cultural scenic treasures, designated as the 103rd treasure in 2013. The peaks of the ridge resemble the back of a spiked dinosaur, giving it its name. The course is strenuous: it starts at either the Madeungyeong pass or Huiwoongak shelter, meaning that just accessing the ridge involves a difficult climb. The ridge itself is listed on signs in the park as a 5 hour hike over the course of 5.1 kilometers. This can lead to a 10+ hour traverse from the eastern park entrance. The Dinosaur Ridge is listed among the most difficult mountain courses in Korea. With its remote location, steep slopes, and areas requiring scrambling, accidents due to exhaustion are common, especially in winter and during rainy weather. One incident in December 1993 left 2 university students dead after they lost their way at night and experienced hypothermia.

title: Seoraksan


text:
Municipalities of Åland

The 3 regions of Åland are divided into 16 municipalities (kommuner).

 * Population data as of:
 * Area data as of:

title: Municipalities of Åland


text:
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Charte des droits et libertés de la personne), also known as the "Quebec Charter", is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975. It received Royal Assent from Lieutenant Governor Hugues Lapointe, coming into effect on June 28, 1976. Introduced by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, the Charter followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.

The Charter recognizes that every person on the territory of Quebec is equal in value and in dignity. Since the Charter aims to guarantee human rights and to harmonize the relations between citizens, and between citizens and institutions, the Charter binds the state (legislature, executive, administrative) and applies to private law relations (between persons). The Charter also establishes the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, also known by its acronym "CDPDJ"), charged to promote and apply the Charter, and the Human Rights Tribunal of Québec (French: Tribunal des droits de la personne).

The Charter ranks among other quasi-constitutional Quebec laws, such as the Charter of the French Language and the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information. Having precedence over all provincial legislation (including the latter), the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter. Other Canadian provinces and territories have adopted similar laws.

Provisions
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms consists of seven parts:

 * Part I defines fundamental human rights. Its six chapters enunciate fundamental freedoms and rights, equality rights, political rights, judicial rights, economic and social rights, and interpretative provisions.
 * Part II establishes the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. The commission is responsible for promoting and upholding the principles of the charter by any appropriate measures, including investigating possible cases of discrimination and the instigation of litigation. Members of the commission are appointed by the National Assembly. The commission's staff members do not belong to the Civil Service, in order to safeguard their independence.
 * Part III provides for affirmative action programs.
 * Part IV guarantees rights to privacy.
 * Part V gives the government regulatory powers.
 * Part VI establishes the Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec, whose members that hold the decision-making power are chosen from among the judiciary.
 * Part VII provides the final dispositions of the Charter, as well as some punitive sanctions.

Comparison with other human rights instruments
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is unique among Canadian (and North American) human rights documents in that it covers not only the fundamental (civil and political) human rights but also a number of important social and economic rights. The protections contained in the Charter are inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Furthermore, the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination included in the Quebec Charter is extensive; a total of fourteen prohibited grounds are enumerated, including race, colour, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, and language. "Social condition" has been a prohibited ground of discrimination since the charter came into force. Discrimination based on sexual orientation has been prohibited since 1977; with that change, Quebec became the first jurisdiction larger than a city or county to prohibit anti-gay discrimination. In 2016, gender identity or expression was added to the Quebec Charter.

Enforceability to the public and private sectors
Every person, group, institution, private persons, public and private services, as well as the government of Quebec (its institution and the municipal and school governmental administration) are bound by the Charter. Therefore, an illicit violation of the Charter, whether by a private party or by the provincial Crown, may give rise to a cease-and-desist order and to compensation for damages. Punitive damages may be awarded in case of an intentional and unlawful violation.

The Quebec Charter does not apply to federally regulated activities in Quebec, such as the federal public services, banks, telecom companies (e.g.: CBC, Bell, Rogers), and air, rail, or sea transport services (e.g.: Air Canada, Via Rail). Those are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Quasi-constitutional status
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is called quasi-constitutional because, according to section 52, no provision of any other Act passed by the Quebec National Assembly may derogate from sections 1 to 38, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the charter (roughly acting as an equivalent opt-out to the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). A total impossibility to adopt derogating laws could be considered incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty, a fundamental principle in political systems following the British tradition; however, Canada, of which Quebec is a province, has a tradition of constitutional supremacy. Its Constitution, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is supreme, binding the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of Canada's provinces and territories.

The non-supremacy of economic and social rights
The Quebec Charter's supremacy under its section 52 applies to the following categories of rights: fundamental rights and freedoms (the right to life, free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, etc.); the right to equality; political rights; and judicial rights. Economic and social rights do not enjoy supremacy but, according to the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2002 case of Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), failure to respect such a right may give rise to a judicial declaration of violation.

The Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal
The Charter provides for specific machinery in cases of discrimination (or exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability). Instead of introducing litigation in court, victims of such a violation may file a complaint with the Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission. The commission will investigate the matter and attempt to foster a settlement between the parties. It may recommend corrective measures. If those are not followed, the commission may introduce litigation before a court (usually, but not necessarily, the Human Rights Tribunal). Victims can be represented free of charge by the commission (subject to the commission's discretion).

History
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.

Before the adoption of the Charter, Quebec did not have a Bill of Rights, unlike some of the other provinces. At that time, the Civil Code (Code civil du Bas-Canada) served to protect some Human Rights and Freedoms. The Ligue des droits de l'Homme (now the Ligue des droits et libertés) convinced the government of the importance of protecting Human Rights through a specific law. Many famous law professors at the time, such as Paul-André Crépeau, Jacques-Yvan Morin and Frank Scott, took part in drafting the Bill that would eventually become the Quebec Charter.

On October 29, 1974, the minister of Justice, the liberal Jérôme Choquette, introduced the Bill before the National Assembly of Quebec. The Charter was adopted unanimously by the Assembly on June 27, 1975, and came into force on June 28, 1976.

Since it came into force, the Charter was modified many times in order to better guarantee Human Rights:

Note that except when the legislator modifies the text of the Charter, the evolution of the Charter and the interpretation of its disposition are the result not only from the decisions of the courts, but also from the struggles carried out by civil society.
 * 1977: Sexual orientation was added amongst the forbidden ground of discrimination (s. 10).
 * 1979: The right of every worker to fair and reasonable conditions of employment which have proper regard for his health, safety and physical well-being was added amongst the economic and social rights (s. 46).
 * 1982: The Charter is modified in order to forbid discriminatory harassment (s. 10.1), discrimination in employment based on criminal records (s. 18.2), as well as discrimination based on disability, pregnancy, and age (s. 10). Part III of the Charter, which regulates Affirmative action programs, was also added.
 * 1989: Part IV of the Charter was added, in order to create a Human Rights Tribunal. Part II of the Charter, regarding the role and powers of the Human Rights Commission, was modified accordingly.
 * 2006: The right of every person to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved was added amongst the economic and social rights (s. 46.1).
 * 2008: The Charter provides that all rights and freedoms must be guaranteed equally between men and women (s. 50.1).
 * 2019: The principle of State laicity (State secularism) is added at s. 9.1 and to the Preamble of the Charter.
 * 2022: The importance of protecting the french language is added to s. 9.1 and to the Preamble of the Charter. The Charter also guarantees the right to live in French (s. 3.1) and a new paragraph was added to s. 50, according to which the Charter cannot be interpreted in a way that would suppress or restrict a right that aims to protect French language.

Notable case law
Notable cases decided under the Charter include:
 * Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 : Freedom of expression and signs
 * Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790 : Freedom of expression
 * Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530 : Abortion
 * Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 : Residency requirements
 * Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 : Privacy rights
 * Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City of); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City of), 2000 SCC 27 : Discrimination based on disability (handicap)
 * Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429, 2002 SCC 84 : Social rights
 * Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 : Freedom of religion
 * Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 238 : Minority language education
 * Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791 : Health care
 * Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16 : State neutrality in religious matters
 * Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43: discriminatory remarks and conflict of rights


text:
Mikio Sato

Mikio Sato (佐藤 幹夫) was a Japanese mathematician known for founding the fields of algebraic analysis, hyperfunctions, and holonomic quantum fields. He was a professor at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Kyoto.

Biography
Born in Tokyo on 18 April 1928, Sato studied at the University of Tokyo, receiving his BSc in 1952 and PhD under Shokichi Iyanaga in 1963. He was a professor at Osaka University and the University of Tokyo before moving to the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) attached to Kyoto University in 1970. He was director of RIMS from 1987 to 1991.

His disciples include Masaki Kashiwara, Takahiro Kawai, Tetsuji Miwa, as well as Michio Jimbo, who have been called the "Sato School".

Sato died at home in Kyoto on 9 January 2023, aged 94.

Research
Sato was known for his innovative work in a number of fields, such as prehomogeneous vector spaces and Bernstein–Sato polynomials; and particularly for his hyperfunction theory. This theory initially appeared as an extension of the ideas of distribution theory; it was soon connected to the local cohomology theory of Grothendieck, for which it was an independent realisation in terms of sheaf theory. Further, it led to the theory of microfunctions and microlocal analysis in linear partial differential equations and Fourier theory, such as for wave fronts, and ultimately to the current developments in D-module theory. Part of Sato's hyperfunction theory is the modern theory of holonomic systems: PDEs overdetermined to the point of having finite-dimensional spaces of solutions (algebraic analysis).

In theoretical physics, Sato wrote a series of papers in the 1970s with Michio Jimbo and Tetsuji Miwa that developed the theory of holonomic quantum fields. When Sato was awarded the 2002–2003 Wolf Prize in Mathematics, this work was described as "a far-reaching extension of the mathematical formalism underlying the two-dimensional Ising model, and introduced along the way the famous tau functions." Sato also contributed basic work to non-linear soliton theory, with the use of Grassmannians of infinite dimension.

In number theory, he and John Tate independently posed the Sato–Tate conjecture on L-functions around 1960.

Pierre Schapira remarked, "Looking back, 40 years later, we realize that Sato's approach to mathematics is not so different from that of Grothendieck, that Sato did have the incredible temerity to treat analysis as algebraic geometry and was also able to build the algebraic and geometric tools adapted to his problems."

Awards and honours
Sato received the 1969 Asahi Prize of Science, the 1976 Japan Academy Prize, the 1984 Person of Cultural Merits award of the Japanese Education Ministry, the 1997 Schock Prize, and the 2002–2003 Wolf Prize in Mathematics.

Sato was a plenary speaker at the 1983 International Congress of Mathematicians in Warsaw. He was elected a foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1993.

title: Mikio Sato


text:
User:Mtcv

Dutch Wikipedian: Gebruiker:Mtcv

title: User:Mtcv


text:
Talk:Theistic evolution/Archive 1

I've now archived this page. Please don't add comments to it, as they might not be seen. Instead, please add new comments to Talk:Theistic evolution. Thank you. --G Rutter 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Random discussion

 * Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism

If Evolutionary Creationism is the less common term, why is it the name of the article? Matt - 9/23/05

 * Theistic evolution is the position promoted by most major Christian churches, some Judaism denominations and other religious organizations that don't subscribe to a literalist position with regards to their scriptures.

If "most" major Christian churches promote this, then I wonder why I haven't heard about it yet. I've spent a lot of time talking with other Christians, reading Christian books and magazines, etc. How could I have missed this?

Is it a POV of some evolution advocates that "even lots of churches agree with us", or is it a FACT?

A list of churches whose theology is clearly compatible with evolution would be nice, or at least a few statements by religious leaders. --Uncle Ed 15:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Check the external link for one reference. You may not have heard about it under this name, but I'm a little surprised if you've not come across the concept. A list of churches would of course be better - it'd start with the Catholic Church. eg. Martin 00:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It's not quite that straightforward. For example, my denomination officially has no problem with evolution, but there are still a lot of creationists among the rank-and-file believers. I presume the situation with other churches is similar. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:33, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why EC over TE?
I believe the article should be titled Theistic Evolution, with Evolutionary Creationism as the alternative name. Theistic evolution is simply the term that is most commonly accepted, and in fact, I have not even heard of Evolutionary Creationism until the past year, and I am heavily involved in these discussions over a wide variety of forums. Even a quick check in Google will show which one is the one generally used. This is of course, assuming they are even the same thing, and of course, I'd prefer they be split. But if they must be together, I propose that Theistic Evolution should be the term used as Evolutionary Creationism itself is not very neutral and most people who hold this position would probably rather be lumped in the Evolution side of the debate than with the Creationist side as far as the scientific aspects go.

Furthermore, a lot of us feel there is a difference between Creation and CreationISM. Generally, us TEs will probably accept the following statement: We believe in Creation, we reject Creationism, and we accept evolution. If any other TE/ECs feel differently, feel free to respond.

Basically, the whole -ism makes it feel very non-NPOV, but then again, not having the -ism could be argued as non-NPOV by the Creationists as well. Dracil 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears this whole thing was a result of MyRedDice who created these two articles, but chose to make EC the main article while TE redirect to it. There is no real good basis for this (and I hope, I have offered enough to show why it should in fact, be reversed). Dracil 21:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary biologists who were also theists
Although evolutionary biologists are often atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), there have been some who were theists too. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 — 1913), who in 1858 jointly proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection with Charles Darwin, was a theist, though Darwin's views remain unclear. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900 — 1975), one of the of the modern evolutionary synthesis wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

 * ''I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way

 * Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

Another architect of the synthesis, Ronald Fisher (1890 — 1962) was also a Christian. More recently Brown University Professor Kenneth R. Miller, author of many textbooks has written on the subject.

Comments on individuals within this article

 * Alfred Wallace did not "jointly propose" natural selection. Wallace first thought of natural selection in 1858 but Darwin had been working on natural selection for the past twenty years before then. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Wallace's first natural selection-related analysis was published in 1863.

 * Lyell and Hooker presented Wallace's essay, along with sections by Darwin to the Linnean Society of London in 1858, so the first public presentation was by both Darwin and Wallace. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Alfred Wallace was a spiritualist, not a creationist nor a theist. His spiritualism was also restricted to natural laws and negatively viewed the concept of miracles. Also, he "converted" to spiritualism around 1869 and became a socialist in 1889 after reading Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward.

 * On the Wikipedia article it states he believed that :" "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded at least three times in history: 1. The creation of life from inorganic matter. 2. The introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. 3. The generation of the above-mentioned faculties in mankind." I think this belief falls within the definition of evolutionary creationism. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 essay titled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution was a criticism of creationism and an espousal of evolutionary creationism.

 * Which is exactly what it says. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ronald Fisher was not devout or dogmatic Christian. In fact, he opposed traditional Christian teachings. From his biography: ''His respect for tradition, and his conviction that all men are not equal, inclined him politically towards conservatism, and made him an outspoken and lasting opponent of Marxism. Although he did not subscribe to the dogmas of religion, he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up, and believed that the practice of religion was a salutary and humbling human activity. As he said in a broadcast on Science and Christianity (1955):
 * "The custom of making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant. That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously warned."

 * But, nonetheless, it says "he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up", so, however unorthodox, he remained a believer in both God and evolution. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Views of Kenneth Miller

 * Kenneth Miller is an opponent of intelligent design; thus, he's an opponent of creationism, however, he has written a single book on the religious implications of evolution titled Finding Darwin's God. Such a book is not, necessarily, an advocation of evolutionary creationism.

 * Not necessarily, but in extracts from the book here he states that "evolution is the key to understanding God" and that he believes in God (as well as evolution). I think it's therefore fair to characterise him as an evolutionary creationist. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: if you're going to write an entry, check your facts before submission.

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure." -- Mark Twain

Adraeus 06:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was not the original author, but I have checked all the criticisms and I do not believe that any of the statements distorts the facts. I have now revised this section somewhat, but I've included much of what was written before, so have included specific rebuttals to all Adraeus' points directly below his points. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: split Theistic evolution from Evolutionary creationism
In my opinion it would be useful to separate the article on Theistic evolution and give it a different emphasis from the article on Evolutionary creationism, while acknowledging an overlap and linking the articles. At the moment links to Theistic evolution are redirected here, even though both links sometimes appear in the same article.

Given the association of Creationism with opposition to Darwinian natural selection, I'd suggest that the emphasis in Evolutionary creationism should be on those believing that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, while those who think of God as not intervening in species formation after initially creating life and/or setting up laws would appear under Theistic evolution. At present there doesn't seem to be a place for creationist positions like Richard Owen's "ordained continuous becoming" or Charles Lyell's episodic "centres of creation", and these could be added to the Evolutionary creationism article.

 * I agree that there is a significant difference between the two. At the moment, this article is still small, and there is some relationship between the two ideas. So for the moment I would suggest rewriting parts of this article to clarify the differences that you point out.  Today I rewrote the introduction to begin clarifying this point.  Please tell me what you think. Don't be afraid to offend me by rewriting my text, or totally disagreeing!

The article on Creationism says of Evolutionary creationism that " Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called theistic evolution, just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.", but links these two different positions effectively to this same page. I'm happy to have a go at splitting these articles to overcome this anomaly, but would welcome comments before proceeding. .dave souza 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As I understand these terms, the phrase Evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. If most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution tacked on as a secondary concern. RK

 * I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct? (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.) RK 20:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced that there's much of a distinction between the two terms (at the moment I'd certainly be happy to use either to describe myself), though I'm very probably wrong! I'd be more convinced if we could find a few evolutionary creationists/theistic evolutionists claiming that they were one and not the other and why. The quote from the creationism page doesn't seem to draw a distinction between the two- except to try and make "theisitic evolution" somehow perjorative. Perhaps, rather, we need to go and fix the links? Surely any form of evolutionary creationism is an attempt to synthesize an understanding that God created the universe with a scientific understanding of how this occurred. Of course, there are different understandings of how this synthesis should be managed, but I'm still confused by the distinction you're trying to draw. Sorry, this is probably just me! --G Rutter 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the proposal that the term theistic evolution should be used of a belief that God started the process, then let it run itself, is that it cuts across the historic distinction between deism and theism. Both accept the notion of a creator God/god, but theism involves a belief in a God who continues to interact with his creation. If there has to be a distinction, I would propose that the theistic evolutionist be defined as the scientist who advocates a theistic model of evolution, while the evolutionary creationist is the person, scientist or not, who believes in this model. Do we need this distinction? The belief that God started the process, then left it to work itself out would be better called deistic evolution --- Cheers, Neil Copeland.

As per the request at Talk:Evolution, can I sugest the Creation continum at TalkOrigins.org. They say: Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one. Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links. http://www.orot.com/ec.html

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980) Joe D (t) 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There are currently two conjectures which I am aware of that seek to weave evolution into their framework, both of which can be seen as reasonable or problematic, depending on your viewpoint:

 * 1) The Day-Age Theory
 * States that the six-days of the Genesis creation are commonly misinterpreted to each be representations of longer timespans. (1 God day = millions of man years.)  This can be countered with several tangibles which tend to prove that the earth is only around 6,000 years old.  I suppose I'll just throw a few of these out:  the oldest tree on earth is a bristlecone pine that is approximately 4,400 years old.  The great barrier reef, dated by measuring the growth rate for twenty consecutive years, is less than 4,200 years old.  The Coriolis Effect, which is proportional to the speed of the Earth's rotation, causes the prevailing wind currents -- with this in mind, the calculations from the expansions of the Sahara desert (appx 2 miles/year) show the desert to be about 4,000 years old.  And lastly, Earth's declining magnetic field, measured in studies over the past 140 years, show that as few as 25,000 years ago, Earth would not have been able to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

 * 1) The Gap Theory
 * Though there tend to be as many interpretations of this theory as there are theologians, the basic idea behind it is that there is a gap of an unknown length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. (KJ) If you use this to tie in evolution with creation, you have quite a problem because death would bring man into the world.  According to Genesis, man's sin brought death into the world, not the other way around.

If more examples are needed I would be much obliged. I believe both of these theories to be insufficient for supporting an agreement between creation and evolution. Aside from that argument, evolution has its issues as well. That is why the opinion in the intro to the evolution article is inappropriate and even deceptive. Please refer to the discussion archives to see the affinitive details of my position on this. Salva31 05:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Salva, give it up. We simply do not care what you believe! We are only trying to describe evolution accurately, in accord with NPOV policy. And by the way, evolution does not "have its issues as well". That is mere fundamentalist propaganda, and very-well debunked propaganda at that. RK

 * Well, RK, your analysis is a little flawed. Many of the things used to support evolution in the past have been proven wrong.  This process is continuing, and I guarantee you, one piece at a time, evolution is a religion masked as a science that is steadily crumbling away into history.  If you do not believe me on this, I told you to refer to the archives.  I am not propagandizing, nor am I a fundamentalist.  You are not playing this game in a fair way by saying that.  If you don't care, then that's fine, and I'm sorry that you choose to be so close minded.  In this country, it is appropriate to display a reference article that talks about a theory, but frankly it is not right to target other supported theories using deceitful propaganda in the process.  That comment is there because some people feel insecure about the ability of that article to convert readers to its belief system.  You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further.  Salva31 09:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Salva, I have never offered any analysis on the subject. The existence of biological evolution is a scientific fact that has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Further, none of the things that have supported evolution have been proven wrong. Please stop proselytizing us with your wildly anti-Scientific fairy tales. BTW, when you say "You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further." you clearly expose yourself as a troll, here for the sole purpose of disrupting our project.  If you continue trolling you will be pulled before the ArbCom.  So go ahead and try and insult us all that you want -it will only make your eventual ban come only sooner. RK

Joe D, thanks for reminding us about the Creation continum analysis at TalkOrigins.org. I had read that a while ago, but didn't even think about it when I wrote my question. Unless others have a reason to disagree, I think that we should go with their definitions. RK 02:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The continum is a propaganda device rather than a legitimate educational tool; the listing of tiny fringe minorities like flat earthers along with other creationists is an example of several propaganda techniques. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool and the minute fringe groups should be rimoved. A link to the propaganda site that proposes that grouping is more than sufficient.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Joe D, the Creation continuum analysis seems a good basis: noting that the continuum runs from Creation to Evolution, the tipping point between the opposing sides lies between Evolutionary creationism and Theistic evolution and this could support the case for separate articles: it may also be noted that many Christians, including Roman Catholics, come under the Theistic evolution definition, and so it seems wrong that they should be in an article with a creationist heading. Salva31, the analysis gives several more examples of theories. My question about Owen's and Lyell's theories is answered: they come under Progressive Creationism, a sub-set of Old Earth Creationists which doesn't seem to be covered in that article, so that's another task to tackle..dave souza 22:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how you can imply that Roman Catholics are not Creationists. Catholics believe that God is intimately involved in Creation, whatever tool he used. Cutting a distinction between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution is a bit ridiculous, but I think the first term is preferable, because it does emphasize that Catholics share much in common and should be grouped with other creationists.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pollinator. I think the definitions given by TalkOrigins are somewhat confused and are more concerned at establishing a continuum than accurately defining the terms they use. I think this is especially shown by the references they use- Schneider spends a lot of her article arguing that all Christian creationists are wrong because they don't use Jewish ways of interpreting the Torah.

TalkOrigins argues that the two positions differ only in their theology. It then does not explain these differences. Both definitions include God operating through evolution, with some aspects being outside modern science, eg the human soul/the first spiritually aware human. I also don't see how any sensible definition of Evolutionary Creationism can include accepting a "literal Genesis"- this is covered by Old Earth or Gap creationism.

I think that the reason there is two phrases to cover the same position is because some people want to use "Theistic Evolution" to avoid using the word "creationism", either becuase of the negative image that creationism might invokes or, if you're a creationist, to deny that Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism is an acceptable belief for a Christian to have.

Again, if anyone can provide other references that contradict my understanding I'm more than happy to have my mind changed! --G Rutter 08:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As there seems to be a fair consensus about keeping these two headings merged, I've had a go at revising links on other pages to reflect this, and have added a page on Progressive Creationism for clarification ..dave souza 12:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Took out the info that implied that majority of Christianity doesn't agree with Evolution; it does, as I expanded upon. Also added section on the Christian justification for Evolution, or rather the Christian justification for non-literal interpretation of Genesis. ..User:Apokryphos

Nice URL
Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution
Hello, I'm new here. I made some edits to the theistic evolution entry, adding more folks besides Kenneth Miller, more material from St. Augustine and John Paul II on evolution and how they interpret Genesis. What was there was very good, but its richer in content now.

I suggest making either EC re-direct to TE or TE re-direct to EC. They appeared to be identical in content, and I didn't delete anyone's work, but added to it. I was accused of destroying the page here by making it re-direct to "theistic evolution" but the two pages appeared identical so I just re-directed.

Should there be two separate entries for EC and TE, or have the folks here decided they are one and the same concept? Maybe two different ways of saying "God used evolution as his main method of creation." That is my view. Evolution is a scientific fact, and God did it (somehow). Whether one calls that theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism doesn't matter to me, but the more well-known term seems to be "theistic evolution."

PhilVaz 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for your edits and for pointing out the duplicate pages. You did the right thing in redirecting, just got it the wrong way round, as we'd already decided that we were going to keep it here! Thanks again- I hope that you keep up the good work! --G Rutter 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I'm pretty satisifed by the quality of the article here on evolutionary creationism. I added individual Wikipedia entries (with pictures) for Keith B. Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Fr. George Coyne, Darrel Falk, John Haught all of whom I was familiar with and have their books. Also one for the Pontifical Academy of Science. Nice job I must say.

However, entries need to be made for the following mentioned in the article, since I don't have their books and am not familiar enough with them:

 * Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
 * R.J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
 * Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity

The more evolutionary creationists we have the better. :)

PhilVaz 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The China Vase
The China Vase: What can science tell us about the china vase? It can measure: height, width, depth, volume, weight, mass, chemical composition, mathematical shape; it can hypothesize on a process of spinning a lump of clay, using tools and water to form it, pressure applied here and there to give it shape, a sequence of events that went into its creation, that it was dried, and glazed, and fired, how the firing process made it stronger, how its shiny surface transmits light. Science can tell us just about everything about the china vase. What it cannot do is tell us who made it. And so, for some reason, it abandons logic, it tosses aside Occum’s razor, and adopts the odd assumption that the china vase just happened. Phiddipus 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I was in the process of reverting this when someone beat me to it. This qualifies as original research unless you can find a source that states this argument. And if you do, it needs to be sourced and presented as their point of view. the idea that science "abandons logic" and asserts the vase "just happened" would make me wager that at least part of this is simply original research. FuelWagon 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic position
Cut a lot of confusing stuff

 * Not confusing it was perfectly acceptable as it was. I am VERY familiar with all the statements of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution, and I have a large (conservative) Catholic apologetics site online. I am also very sympathetic and very familiar with evangelical-fundamentalist Protestant criticisms of evolution, but believe them mistaken since their science is quite poor. I'm afraid your additions and deletions are not clarifying the Roman Catholic viewpoint on evolution. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of a particular individual, Adam and Eve. Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis," and again concluded that "if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his October 22, 1996 Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "since the Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on [certain] conditions." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

This contradicts Cardinal Schönborn's statement on evolution:

 * No it does not. First of all, Schonborn's "statement" was an editorial in the New York Times, which hardly compares with the authority of a papal encyclical. Schonborn is not the pope. And what do you mean by "this" -- I certainly hope you do not mean the Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis and John Paul II's 1996 statement to the PAS contradicts Benedict XVI or Cardinal Schonborn. They do not. And you haven't read Schonborn very closely. See below. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was 'more than just a hypothesis,' defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance -- or at least acquiescence -- of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (from an editorial in the New York Times, 7 July 2005) (emphasis added for Wikipedia discussion)

 * Yes, I am familiar with his New York Times editorial. However, what Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma" is atheistic evolutionists such as Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins. In his first catechetical lecture from 2005/2006 on the creation-evolution topic, Cardinal Schonborn quotes them directly as follows:

 * Huxley from 1959: "In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure...." (Huxley)

 * Schonborn comments on the above: "I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a 'confession of faith' -- that faith being materialism." (Schonborn)

 * Provine from 1988: "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable." (Provine)

 * Schonborn comments on the above: "This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim." (Schonborn)

 * Atkins from 1992: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment." (Atkins)

 * Schonborn comments on the above: "Again, this is a 'confession of faith'; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of 'border-crossings,' that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview." (Schonborn)

 * Is it becoming clear now what Cardinal Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwianian dogma?" He had in mind evolutionists who treated the biological theory of evolution as somehow supporting metaphysical naturalism, which is a philosophical claim, and constitutes ideology not science. It has nothing to do with the science of biological evolution or "common descent" as such. See Schonborn's first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006 available from St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna which I have linked. Schonborn clearly has no problem with theistic evolution, or "evolutionary creationism" as defined correctly in this Wikipedia article.

 * Schonborn has said: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (Huxley, Provine, Atkins above), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews." (2 October 2005, first Catechetical Lecture for 2005/2006)

 * That is Schonborn's true position, please do not misrepresent it. He simply wants to separate the philosophical claims (materialism, etc) from the science, but has no problem with biological evolution (or common descent) as such. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Schonborn distinctly says: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not." Is there any way to interpret this other than a DENIAL of the notion that the RC church accepts unguided evolution?

 * Yes there is. Of course it depends what you mean by unguided evolution. Metaphysical naturalism? Catholic Church is against that. That God is not the Creator of the universe? Catholic Church is against that. That God cannot intervene in nature? Yes, Catholic Church is against that. We believe in miracles. But what Cardinal Schonborn clearly had in mind were folks like Huxley, Provine, Atkins when they use evolution as a philosophical support for their atheism. Are we clear now? Theistic evolution vs. atheistic evolution.

 * In addition, the De Fide statements of the Catholic Church on creation are the following, and none of these are scientific claims, and the Church doesn't claim they are. They are theological positions. These are found in Denzinger or a book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (pages 79-91)

 * God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
 * The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
 * The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
 * God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
 * God has created a good world. (De Fide)
 * The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
 * God alone created the world. (De Fide)
 * God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
 * God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

 * I spell out in great detail what it is the Catholic Church accepts and defines on the creation and evolution issue here in response to young-earther Robert Sungenis. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And if "unguided evolution" *IS* evolution, then where does this leave us as encyclopedia editors? Uncle Ed 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Who are you Ed? Are you Roman Catholic? I appreciate the participation, but please read all that the Roman Catholic Church has written on the evolution topic and represent it accurately. Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creationism") as defined in this Wikipedia article is the clear position of John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn. The longest sustained explanation of the creation-evolution-design position within the Roman Catholic Church is found in the International Theological Commission statement from July 2004, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). Paragraphs 62-70 are quite clear that God the Creator and Primary Cause, works through natural, secondary causes like evolution. Here is paragraph 63 on what the Catholic Church accepts as science:

 * "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

That's about all I need to say. The Catholic Church, John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn etc have no problems with this science above.

PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've restored Ed's mass deletion, as Schonborn does not speak canonically for the Catholic Church on this topic, and his statements do not by measure supercede a papal proclaimation like that of Pope John Paul II's. Furthermore, the RCC has taught for over 40 years that evolution as process is entirely consistent with the catechism. Cardinal Poupard contradicts Schonborn here: FeloniousMonk 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It leaves us to clearly explain in a NPOV manner. By the way, a few million Eastern Orthodox Christians would be rather hurt at the idea that their position is determined by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. I've changed unguided evolution from a redirect to clarify matters....dave souza 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

 * Schonborn set off the rippling controversy last month with an opinion piece in the New York Times that stated evolution proponents had wrongly claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings.

 * Although the essay was not submitted on behalf of the Vatican, Schonborn told the Times that he had discussed it with Pope Benedict XVI shortly before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in April.

So who is more believable:
 * 1) "evolution proponents" who claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings; or,
 * 2) a prominent Roman Catholic cardinal who says that these proponents "wrongly claimed" this?

I think Wikipedia should indicate that there is a controversy here. Uncle Ed 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No, Wikipedia should not indicate there is a controversy. Just as in biology itself, there is no controversy on this subject within the Catholic Church. John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn have clarified their positions on evolution, and that is theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) or a God-guided evolution. God works through natural, secondary causes, and common descent is "virtually certain" and this is compatible with God's Providence, according to the Church's best theologians on the subject.

 * Further, what is Cardinal Schonborn's opinion of Charles Darwin and Origin of Species? Here it is:

 * "With this, his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has become, so to speak, a "master key," extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (from the same first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006)PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of discussion please?
I havn't been paying attention, but I see some of my favorite editors are here. (no sarcasm intend I assure you) Can someone tell me what the flap here is? As I understand it, evolutionary creationists accept science all the way to x^n-1, and then say "And then god pushed the whole thing into motion with a specific Plan/Design/Purpose. Secular science kinda shrugs and goes. "I dunno. We can prove that it started, we can't prove that there was a grand reason, we can't prove it doesn't, that isn't our job." Evolutionary creationism is essentially a fancy way of saying "God was involved in a way that doesn't contradict scientific evidence, but it is a belief of faith outside the bounds of the scientific method." So I understand it anyway. So whats the flap?--Tznkai 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The flap is over whether "evolution" means (1) only that life gradually appeared or (2) that life appeared gradually and that God had nothing to do with this. Cut from article: "Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution." This sentence can be construed as true or false, depending on what the writer means by "teaching evolution". Uncle Ed 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello, Ed. There is no controversy on this in the Catholic Church. The idea "God had nothing to do with" life is obviously not the Catholic position since we believe God is the Creator. Until the 17th century or so, all scientists were young-earth creationists. Since the early 19th century at least, we've recognized geology and biology do tell us much about where we come from physically. To quote Benedict XVI in a commentary on Genesis he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger: "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In The Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, 1986, repub 1995). That is the current Pope's position, and the position of Cardinal Schonborn. The position of the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution has been clear since Pius XII (1950s). God is the Creator, and God created by evolution. Sure God could intervene any time he wanted, but those interventions (called miracles) are not detectable by scientific means. PhilVaz 17:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If there is no controversy, why does the article say that Schonborn's view is contradicted by two other Catholic leaders?

Spin off Christian views on evolutionary creationism
There's too much information on Christian views, pro and con, for this article. And the bullet point formatting makes it hard to read.

Those interested in what religious people have to say about Evolution - particularly as it relates to the US creation-evolution debate, will be better served with a spin-off. Content forking provides guidelines on how to do this. Uncle Ed 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think that there is enough material for a spin-off in this instance. In particular, I'm not sure what the difference between the Christian views on this subject and the subject itself are since this subject is basically defined by Christians. Do you have a particular reference you are working from? --ScienceApologist 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'd be very interested to hear about all those atheist Creationists out there. *eye-roll* -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theistic evolution/Archive 1