Scrape wikipedia-science: 1347 new, 993 updated, 2398 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_the_Matter_(TV_series)-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "Heart of the Matter (TV series)"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_the_Matter_(TV_series)"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:37.203178+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Heart of the Matter is a British television debate series that aired on BBC One from 1979 to 2000. Presented variously by Joan Bakewell, Helena Kennedy QC and David Jessel, its subject matter was often concerned with religious or ethical issues. Topics covered include subjects as diverse as substance abuse, the effects of anti-personnel landmines, and homosexuality. Bakewell would usually chair an in-studio debate in which invited guests would discuss the edition's chosen topic. An edition from 1996 hosted by Joan Bakewell, The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope, featured a debate on science and religion and included as guests David Starkey, Mary Warnock, Wentzel van Huyssteen, Richard Dawkins, Polish Roman Catholic priest and 2008 Templeton Prize winner  cosmologist Prof. Michael Heller, and James Watson.
+Heart of the Matter was broadcast late on Sunday evenings, usually alternating with the similarly themed Everyman, though the latter tended to have more of a religious focus. Both programmes were cancelled in the 2000s following a revamp of BBC output.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Heart of the Matter at IMDb
+Heart of the Matter at the British Film Institute

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+title: "History of the extraterrestrial life debate"
+chunk: 1/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:38.469760+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The existence of extraterrestrial life is a scientific idea that has been debated for centuries. Initially, the question was purely speculative; in modern times a limited amount of scientific evidence provides some answers. The idea was first proposed in Ancient Greece, where it was supported by atomists and rejected by Aristotelians. The debate continued during the Middle Ages, when the discussion centered upon whether the notion of extraterrestrial life was compatible with the doctrines of Christianity. The Copernican Revolution radically altered mankind's image of the architecture of the cosmos by removing Earth from the center of the universe, which made the concept of extraterrestrial life more plausible. Today we have no conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life, but experts in many different disciplines gather to study the idea under the scientific umbrella of astrobiology.
+
+== Ancient Greece ==
+
+During the early days of the history of astronomy the things seen in the night sky were explained as the actions of mythological deities. However, it soon became evident that celestial objects move and behave in regular and predictable patterns, which helped in keeping track of time, tides, and seasons, crucial for ancient agriculture. Most ancient civilizations had great knowledge of astronomy but only used it for religious and practical needs. Ancient Greek astronomy sought to go beyond that and explain the architecture of the cosmos.
+Thales of Miletus sought to explain the nature of the universe without relying on supernatural explanations, and reasoned that Earth was a flat disk floating on an ocean of water. The idea was not widely accepted even then, but it established the underlying idea that the universe is intrinsically understandable. Greek philosophers did not follow the scientific method but based their ideas on pure thought instead. However, their discussions laid some principles that would eventually lead to it, such as the rejection of supernatural explanations and that ideas would not be valid if they were contradicted by observable facts. They also developed geometry, which helped with architecture and other practical tasks, but also with astronomic observations.
+The initial idea of a flat Earth covered by a celestial dome was soon discarded. Thales' student Anaximander proposed a full celestial sphere instead. He also noticed evidences of the curved surface of the world and proposed that the Earth was shaped like a cylinder. Most other Greeks, however, preferred the proposal of Pythagoras that Earth was a perfect sphere, as they associated circles and spheres with mathematical perfection. The model of the celestial sphere works for distant stars, which seem to be at fixed locations in the sky to the naked eye, but the Sun and the Moon move at different speeds and the other classical planets follow complex paths and vary in their brightness. This was explained by adding other layers to the celestial sphere. This was detailed in the Ptolemaic model. Aristarchus of Samos proposed instead that it is Earth that spins around the sun, which makes it easier to explain the retrograde motion of the classical planets, but this was rejected by other Greeks. They pointed out that if Earth moves a stellar parallax would change the location of stars in the sky during the year. Although stellar parallax does exist, stars are too far away from Earth, more than Greeks considered, to be noticeable by the naked eye.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "History of the extraterrestrial life debate"
+chunk: 2/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:38.469760+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Greeks discussed as well the possible existence of other worlds, but did not consider the planets as such. In their view, the celestial sphere was a part of Earth and other potential worlds would have their own ones. There was consensus that the world was made of the four classical elements, earth, water, fire and air. From there, they had two opposite ideas: Atomists thought that all existence was composed by atoms, small and indivisible pieces of the four elements, and Aristotelians thought that the four elements were exclusive to Earth and that the universe was made of a fifth one, the Aether. The atomist view would allow the existence of other worlds, as the processes that created Earth may happen elsewhere as well. Although very few of their writings were preserved, it is known that early atomists Leucippus and Democritus thought that atoms should create other worlds the same way Earth was created. Epicurus said in his "Letter to Herodotus" that "There are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours... we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world".
+Aristotle and Plato opposed the idea of a plurality of worlds. Plato reasoned that there could be a single heaven, and that if there were several worlds the universe would be composite, eventually falling into dissolution and decay. Aristotle thought that the earth element would tend to fall to the center of the universe and fire to rise away from it, under that logic the existence of other worlds would not be possible. He also thought that Aether moves in circles, and for that reason the universe could not be spatially infinite. Aristotle also rejected the plurality of universes, or heavens, arguing that the universe has a Prime Mover that started it all. If there were more than one universe then there would be more than one Prime Mover, and he considered that idea to be impossible. This idea may be influenced by his theological views, as well as his views about physics and cosmology. He concluded that "The world must be unique... There cannot be several worlds".
+The Greek ideas and debates expanded across the ancient world, beyond Greece. Epicureanism spread across the Roman Empire, with proponents such as Lucretius with his book De rerum natura. Alexander the Great made a series of military campaigns that expanded the Greek Macedonian Empire to the Middle East, founding the city of Alexandria in Egypt, which would house the Library of Alexandria which was eventually destroyed. Baghdad became a hub of learning and trade during the Islamic Golden Age. Many Islamic scholars studied at the Library and cited or translated the work of the Greek authors, which did not get completely lost. They were also in contact with Hindu scholars from India, who were in turn influenced by the Chinese works and discoveries. Thus, Baghdad created a synthesis of the combined works of Ancient Greece, India, China, and their own scholars. This knowledge spread across the Byzantine Empire, and finally returned to Europe when many scholars escaped from the fall of Constantinople.
+
+== Christianity ==
+
+The views of the atomists fell under religious scrutiny when Christianity became a prominent religion. All Church Fathers who made mention of the idea of the plurality of worlds dismissed it as a heresy. The only exception was Origen, who did not believe in many worlds existing at the same time, but rather in worlds that may exist before and after Earth. He developed this idea to explain God's apparent lack of purpose and activities before creating the world. Augustine of Hippo rejected this idea, proposing that time only manifests in the motion of the material, which means that there was no time "before" the creation because time itself started with it. Thomas Aquinas discussed it in his Summa Theologica: according to John 1:10 "the world was made by Him", with "world" in singular, which would mean only one. A single world would also mean order, in contrast with the plurality of words held by atomists, who would believe in chance rather than in an "ordaining wisdom" creating it all. He cited the Aristotlean thought in his support; On the Heavens had been translated to Latin by Gerard of Cremona a few years before. He also considered that, as God was only one, he would create only one world to mirror his own perfection. However, the ideas of Aquinas were banned by the Condemnation of 1277: they considered that God was being analyzed in a very rational way, and that they were close to suggesting that God could not do certain things, such as creating infinite worlds. In the following years several scholars discussed the plurality of worlds and maintained that it was not a theological impossibility, even if they rejected it for other reasons.
+William Vorilong was likely the first author to discuss the death and resurrection of Christ in the context of the plurality of worlds. He reasoned that if there were people on other worlds they would not be living in sin, because they would not descend from Adam and Eve, but they would still live by virtue of God. He assumed that the death of Christ would surely redeem the people of other worlds just as it did for humans on Earth, and did not consider fitting that God would repeatedly manifest at each different world.
+
+== Copernican revolution ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+title: "History of the extraterrestrial life debate"
+chunk: 3/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:38.469760+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Nicolaus Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543, kickstarting the Copernican Revolution. This book restored and updated the old idea of Aristarchus that Earth spins around the sun. The new version was written with so much mathematical detail that it could contest the Ptolemaic model. By this time, scientists noticed several inaccuracies in the Ptolemaic model. They were more open to revising it, but largely kept using it because of the huge work involved in changing the tables. Copernicus thought that Earth spinning around the sun could provide a simpler explanation for the retrograde motion of the planets, and calculated the distance of the planets to the Sun. However, he kept the idea of circular orbits, and added several composite orbits to explain the errors caused by it. Although he correctly displaced the center of the Solar System, this first model turned out to be as inaccurate and as complex as the Ptolematic one, and did not get much supporters in the first decades.
+A recurring problem for both models was the lack of quality data, as the telescope had not been invented yet and naked eye observations are highly inaccurate. The Danish Tycho Brahe sought to gather such data, by creating huge naked-eye observatories. On his deathbed, he asked his assistant Johannes Kepler to make sense of his observations, so that it did not feel like he lived in vain. Kepler initially kept the circular orbits, and eventually found a system that would explain all the data, except for a mistake of 8 arcminutes on the position of Mars. However, Kepler trusted the accuracy of Tycho's observations, and so refused his provisional results. Instead, he challenged the circular orbits and tried with other shapes. With orbits shaped as ellipses he could explain the recorded motion of all the planets, including Mars' retrograde motion, without using composite circles to do so. He compiled his final results as the Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "History of the extraterrestrial life debate"
+chunk: 4/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_extraterrestrial_life_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:38.469760+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+However, some scientists had concerns over the new model. Aristotle had once stated that Earth could not move because, if it did so, birds, clouds, and falling objects would be left behind. Orbits had to be circular because the heavens had to be perfect and unchanging. And if Earth moved, the stars should leave a stellar parallax. Those concerns were addressed by Galileo Galilei. First, he explained that an object in motion stays in motion unless a force stops it; a principle nowadays included in the first of Newton's laws of motion. The idea of heavenly perfection was already being challenged by Tycho's observations. Tycho had observed a supernova, which proved that sometimes the heavens do change. The newly invented telescope also revealed "imperfections" in celestial bodies: the sun was shown with sunspots, and the Moon has many features such as craters and mountain ranges. If the heavens were not as perfect as originally considered, then the idea that orbits are not perfect circles was not so questionable. Galileo also discovered the Galilean moons of Jupiter, celestial bodies orbiting another planet, and the phases of Venus. The existence of the Galilean moons refuted the common argument that the Moon would not stay with a moving Earth. As for the stellar parallax, Galileo could not prove that the stars were more distant than estimated, but got strong evidence suggesting it: a closer look at the Milky Way revealed that it is composed of several stars.
+Although those discoveries proved that Earth was not located at the center of everything, they did not completely prove that it spins around the Sun; this fact was fully confirmed when the stellar parallax was measured in detail and with stellar aberration. However, the idea generated such controversy that Galileo was summoned by the Inquisition and forced to recant his findings. Galileo, who was 70 at the time and probably fearing that his life would be at stake, did as ordered. It is said that Galileo muttered "Eppur si muove" (Italian for "And yet it moves"), but most historians doubt it, given the possible consequences Galileo would have faced if heard.
+Despite the trial, by 1630 the model of Kepler and the clarifications of Galileo were unanimously accepted. However, although it was accepted that planets moved in ellipses, it was not clear why they did so. The reason was finally explained by Sir Isaac Newton in his book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which described the three laws of motion. This book also introduced the law of universal gravitation, and explains all motions in the universe. It also uses maths to explain that Kepler's laws of planetary motion are a natural consequence of the laws of gravitation and motion. With this, the geocentric model was completely discarded.
+The Copernican revolution, the time between Copernicus and Newton, was almost 150 years and changed science forever. It changed the view of the universe and the place of Earth and humankind in it, shifting from a central position to just a world like many others. It also changed the way science works. Previous academics were willing to give leeway to mistakes and errors of measurement, which were strictly less tolerated by the new generations. There was also a stronger emphasis to understand not only how nature works, but also why it works that way and not another. Mere guesses like atomism or aesthetic preferences like heavenly perfection would not fly anymore. Any explanation and assumption was required to be proved before being accepted.
+Although the dispute was not specifically about extraterrestrial life, the outcome kickstarted it. As there was a conflict between atomists and Aristotelians back in ancient Greece, and the Aristotelians were proved to be wrong, many assumed that this meant that atomists were right and that other worlds were just like Earth. However, the only fact about this that was found at this time was that the stars and the classical planets are not lights but celestial objects analogous to Earth, and that life in them may be plausible, if still unknown. The idea of extraterrestrial life, which was once a radical notion held by limited and specific people, became an accepted idea discussed in college classrooms. The change was also possible because of the changes in religious and philosophical thinking that took place at the time.
+Besides that, there was much speculation. Galileo confused the lunar mares with seas. Kepler said that the Moon has an atmosphere and intelligent inhabitants, even writing a science fiction story about them. Dominican philosopher Giordano Bruno accepted the existence of extraterrestrial life, which became one of the charges leveled against him at the Inquisition, leading to his execution.
+
+== Modern times ==
+The study of astronomy continued after Newton, and later technological devices and math models allowed to study objects that were undreamt of at the time. Although no actual extraterrestrial life has been found, either in the Solar System or elsewhere, science currently has a far greater understanding of the context of such life or lack thereof. Biology studies the nature of life, and chemistry and biochemistry the way it works. Chemistry and biochemistry also help to understand abiogenesis, the process by which life can be generated by non-living things, which is not yet completely understood. Physics in general and planetary science in particular help to understand the conditions at places other than Earth and how they can be more beneficial or harmful for life. All those sciences are collectively studied under the umbrella science of astrobiology.
+Most knowledge of astronomy is relevant in some way for the discussion of extraterrestrial life, but there are three main tenets. One, that the universe is incredibly vast and old. Second, the elements that make up life on Earth are plentiful. Third, that the laws that rule matter are the same across the universe. As a result, it can be reasoned that there is nothing special about Earth, and that life on other worlds should be plausible.
+
+== See also ==
+Plurality of worlds – Belief in numerous life-bearing "worlds"
+Exotheology – Examination of theological issues as they pertain to extraterrestrial intelligence
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== References ==
+
+== Bibliography ==
+Bennett, Jeffrey O.; Shostak, Seth (2016). Life in the universe (4th ed.). United States: Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-408908-9.
+Crowe, Michael J., ed. (2008). The extraterrestrial life debate antiquity to 1915: A source book. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-0-268-02368-3.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_on_Religion_in_an_Age_of_Science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+title: "Institute on Religion in an Age of Science"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_on_Religion_in_an_Age_of_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:39.629370+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) is a non-denominational society that promotes and facilitates the ongoing dialectic between religion and science. The Institute has held annual week-long conferences at Star Island in New Hampshire since 1954. The conference attracts about 250 members and non-members each year. The 1964 conference, for example, was attended by 215 conferees, with speeches by figures including Theodosius Dobzhansky.
+
+
+== Mission ==
+In its Constitution, the IRAS purpose is stated as follows: "The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science is established
+
+to promote creative efforts leading to the formulation, in the light of contemporary knowledge, of effective doctrines and practice for human welfare;
+to formulate dynamic and positive relationships between the concepts developed by science and the goals and hopes of humanity expressed through religion; and
+to state human values in such universal and valid terms that they be understood by all peoples, whatever their cultural background or experience, in such a way as to provide a basis for world-wide cooperation.
+The IRAS Council adopted the following statement in 2003:
+"We at IRAS take the natural world seriously as a primary source of meaning. Our quest is informed and guided by the deepening and evolving understandings fostered by scientific inquiry.
+"From here, our quests for meaning take us in divergent directions. For some, the natural world and its emergent manifestations in human experience and creativity are the focus of exploration. Some go on to encounter and celebrate the sacred in such explorations. For others, understandings of the natural world are interwoven with understandings inherent in various religious traditions, generating additional paths of exploration and encounter. As a result, we articulate our emerging orientations with many voices that are harmonious in that we share a common sense of place and gratitude.
+"We acknowledge as well a shared set of values and concerns pertaining to peace, justice, dignity, cultural and ecological diversity and planetary sustainability. Although we may differ and hence debate as to how these concerns are here addressed, we are committed to participating in their resolution."
+
+
+== History ==
+IRAS evolved from the ideas of two pioneer groups. The first was a group of scientists from the Committee on Science and Values of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The second group was an interfaith, religious coalition which hoped to revitalize religion for today's needs. Members of both groups saw what some perceived as a battlefield of conflicting ideologies to be a place of opportunity for a constructive relationship to emerge. The first president was Edwin Prince Booth, a professor of church history at Boston College (1954–1959). Subsequent presidents included Harlow Shapley, Philip Hefner, Ursula Goodenough, and Varadaraja V. Raman.
+In 1954 the scientists accepted an invitation to present their views to the religious group at a seven-day conference on Religion in an Age of Science on Star Island. On November 9, 1954, members of the two groups established the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science to work toward these goals.
+
+
+== Presidents ==
+Presidents of IRAS have been:
+
+Edwin Prince Booth, (1954–59), Professor of Church History, Boston College
+Harlow Shapley, (1960–62), Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University
+Sanborn C. Brown, (1962–67), Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
+Malcolm R. Sutherland Jr., (1967–68), President of Meadville/Lombard Theological School
+Carl Bihldorff, (1968–69), Minister, First Parish, Brookline, Massachusetts
+Hudson Hoagland, (1969–71), Director, Worcester Foundation of Experimental Biology
+Jerome Malino, (1971–73), Rabbi, United Jewish Center, Danbury, Connecticut
+Solomon Hines, (1973–75), Professor of Systematic Theology, Hartford Seminary Foundation
+Malcolm R. Sutherland Jr., (1976–77), President of Meadville/Lombard Theological School
+Solomon H. Katz, (1977–79), Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania
+Philip Hefner, (1979–81), Professor of Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
+Elizabeth Ann Cornett, (1981–83), Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania
+Philip Hefner, (1984–86), Professor of Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
+Ward Goodenough, (1987–89), Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania
+Marjorie Hall Davis, (1989–92), Minister, United Church of Christ, Granby, Connecticut
+Ursula Goodenough, (1992–96), Professor of Biology, Washington University
+Karl E. Peters, (1996–99), Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Rollins College
+Christopher Corbally, (1999–2002), Astronomer, Vatican Observatory
+Michael Cavanaugh, (2002–04), Attorney (retired), Baton Rouge, Louisiana
+Barbara Whittaker-Johns, (2004–05), Minister, Arlington, Massachusetts
+John Teske, (2005–08), Professor, Psychology, Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania
+Ted Laurenson, (2008–11), Attorney, New York, New York
+Varadaraja Raman, (2011–13), Professor of Physics and Humanities, Rochester Institute of Technology
+Barbara Whittaker-Johns, (2013–), Minister, Arlington, Massachusetts
+
+
+== See also ==
+Zygon (journal)
+European Society for the Study of Science and Theology
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Institute on Religion in an Age of Science official website
+Center for Advanced Studies in Religion and Science (CASIRAS)
+James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science, University of Chicago Press, 1997, pp. 273-280.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Intelligent design and science"
+chunk: 1/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:40.957860+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The relationship between intelligent design and science has been a contentious one.  Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community rejects intelligent design as a form of creationism, and the basic facts of evolution are not a matter of controversy in science.
+
+== "Teach the Controversy" ==
+
+The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". In fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved. Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.
+
+== Neo-creationism ==
+
+Advocates of intelligent design from a Christian standpoint seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis. However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools. The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in late 2005 and after President George W. Bush expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush's statement and the pending federal trial, Time magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom. The cover of the magazine featured a parody of The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel. Rather than pointing at Adam, Michelangelo's God points at the image of a chimpanzee contemplating the caption reading "The push to teach 'intelligent design' raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?". In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.
+
+== Theistic science ==
+
+Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism". Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes. They also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.
+It has been argued that methodological naturalism is not an assumption of science, but a result of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to Occam's razor, it cannot be a scientific explanation.
+Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, substituting public support for scientific research. If the argument to give "equal time for all theories" were actually practiced, there would be no logical limit to the number of mutually incompatible supernatural "theories" regarding the origins and diversity of life to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"; intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, for example, states that intelligent design is not falsifiable because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out". Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment".
+The inference that an intelligent designer created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force, has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "Intelligent design and science"
+chunk: 2/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:40.957860+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Inter-faith outreach ==
+Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views. Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. The Roman Catholic Church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world—a position described by the term theistic evolution. While some in the Roman Catholic Church reject Intelligent design for various philosophical and theological reasons, others, such as Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, have shown support for it. The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.
+Rabbi Natan Slifkin directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to religion. Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to things which can be explained by scientific theory. Kenneth Miller expressed a view similar to Slifkin's: "[T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures—rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.
+Intelligent design also has advocates from an Islamic standpoint who believe that, while life may have developed in stages over time, human beings are uniquely created by Allah and not evolved from our common ancestor with apes. It is from Adam and Hawwa (Eve) that humanity is said to have originated from.
+
+== Defining science ==
+Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.  The boundaries between what is and what is not to be considered science, known as the demarcation problem, continues to be debated among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields.
+The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."
+The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.
+Others in the scientific community have concurred,
+and some have called it junk science.
+For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:
+
+Consistent
+Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
+Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
+Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
+Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
+Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
+Progressive (refines previous theories)
+Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
+For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.
+Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard, the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the US Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:
+
+The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
+The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
+There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
+The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
+In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
+At the Kitzmiller trial, philosopher Robert T. Pennock described a common approach to distinguishing science from non-science as examining a theory's compliance with methodological naturalism, the basic method in science of seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.  Intelligent design proponents criticize this method and argue that science, if its goal is to discover truth, must be able to accept evidentially supported, supernatural explanations.  Additionally, philosopher of science Larry Laudan and cosmologist Sean Carroll argue against any a priori criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.  Laudan, as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest, state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems.  Methodological naturalism is therefore an a posteriori criterion due to its ability to yield consistent results.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Intelligent design and science"
+chunk: 3/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:40.957860+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Peer review ==
+The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID.
+Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory. Michael Shermer has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as Joan Roughgarden and Lynn Margulis have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion." The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community.
+Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this research. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".
+The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was a literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review controversy). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."
+In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.
+In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing. There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and David Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms. Michael Lynch called the conclusions of the article "an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic". In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".
+The Discovery Institute has published lists of articles and books which they say support intelligent design and have been peer-reviewed, including the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.  Critics also state that even if these papers could be accepted as cases of support for intelligent design passing peer review, the output from the ID community is still fairly minuscule, especially when compared to the number of peer reviewed articles supporting evolution. Critics state that publishing material is not enough; that scientific ideas must withstand scrutiny and be built upon and that any papers supporting ID have not led to any productive work.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Intelligent design and science"
+chunk: 4/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:40.957860+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Intelligence as an observable quality ==
+The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable". How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, disputed Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.
+Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.
+As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes". This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material Universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Science_and_Religion-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+title: "International Society for Science and Religion"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Science_and_Religion"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:42.173627+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) is a learned society established in 2001 for the purpose of the promotion of education through the support of inter-disciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context. The Society took shape after a four-day conference in Granada, Spain. The society’s central office is based at St. Edmund's College at the University of Cambridge. 
+ISSR's daily operations are run by the Executive Secretary, Professor Fraser Watts in the UK, and Anthony K Nairn in Canada.
+
+
+== Membership ==
+Membership is by nomination only. The title of Fellow of ISSR (FISSR) is granted to all successful nominees. ISSR has over 350 current Members across the globe. There were 97 founding Members, including five Fellows of the Royal Society.
+
+
+=== Varieties of faith tradition ===
+Although many of the founders of the ISSR are Christians, the society actively welcomes members from other faith traditions. The book Why the Science and Religion Dialogue Matters produced by the Society has major contributions from:
+
+John Polkinghorne, George Ellis, Holmes Rolston III and Fraser Watts (who are Christians), on why the science and religion dialogue matters
+Carl Feit on Judaism
+Munawar Anees on Islam
+B.V. Subbarayappa on Hinduism
+Trinh Xuan Thuan on Buddhism
+Heup Young Kim on Asian Christianity
+
+
+=== Presidents ===
+The Presidents of the ISSR have been:
+
+John Polkinghorne (Founding President)
+George Ellis
+Sir Brian Heap
+John Hedley Brooke
+Michael J. Reiss
+Niels Henrik Gregersen (Current President)
+
+
+== The Boyle Lectures ==
+Since 2004, ISSR has been integral to the revived Lecture series, which has been held at the Christopher Wren church of St Mary-le-Bow on Cheapside in the City of London. The original Boyle Lectures date back to a series of sermons delivered at several churches in London and Westminster following their establishment in 1692. Those ‘original Boyles’ lasted until around 1730, although there were sporadic later ‘Boyle Lectures’ that continued to be given over the centuries since. 
+The Lecture series consists of a Lecture delivered by a prominent figure in the scientific and spiritual/religious fields, followed by a Response from a figure of equal standing. 
+The organization and oversight of the Boyle Lectures are administered by the Board of the Boyle Lectures, in collaboration with the Rector and Churchwardens of St Mary-le-Bow. The International Society for Science and Religion has taken a central role on the Board and has led the management, operation, and administration. 
+Since the 2021 Lecture delivered by Tom McLeish (1962-2023) during the COVID-19 pandemic, ISSR has hosted the ISSR Digital Boyle on Science and Religion online through YouTube. These Digital Lectures are followed by a Live Discussion, consisting of a panel of scholars and/or relevant professionals in the fields at stake in that year’s Lecture. 
+
+
+== Opposition to intelligent design ==
+In 2008, the ISSR released a statement declaring "that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology."
+
+
+== See also ==
+Science and religion
+Issues in Science and Religion by Ian Barbour
+
+
+== Notes and references ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official Website
+https://www.youtube.com/@ISSR

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 1/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits Christians from accepting blood transfusions. Their literature states that, "abstaining from ... blood" means not accepting blood transfusions and not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion." This interpretation of scripture is unusual and is one of the doctrines for which Jehovah's Witnesses are best known.
+Jehovah's Witnesses' literature teaches that their refusal of transfusions of whole blood or its four primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma—is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood, even in an emergency. Witnesses are taught that the use of fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac preparations are not absolutely prohibited and are instead a matter of personal choice.
+The doctrine was introduced in 1945 and has undergone some changes since then. Members of the group who voluntarily accept a transfusion and are not deemed repentant are regarded as having disassociated themselves from the group by abandoning its doctrines and are subsequently shunned by members of the organization. Although the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses accept the doctrine, a minority do not.
+The Watch Tower Society has established Hospital Information Services to provide education and facilitate bloodless surgery. This service also maintains Hospital Liaison Committees.
+
+== Doctrine ==
+On the basis of various biblical texts, including Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:28–15:29, Jehovah's Witnesses believe:
+
+Blood represents life and is sacred to God. After it has been removed from a creature, the only use of blood that God has authorized is for the atonement of sins. When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.
+Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.
+Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of.
+Certain medical procedures involving blood fractions or that use a patient's own blood during the course of a medical procedure, such as hemodilution or cell salvage, are a matter of personal choice, according to what a person's conscience permits.
+A baptized Witness who unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion is deemed to have disassociated himself from the group by abandoning its doctrines and is subsequently subject to organized shunning by other members.
+Certain medical procedures involving blood are specifically prohibited by Jehovah's Witnesses' blood doctrine. This includes the use of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma. Other fractions derived from blood are not prohibited. Watch Tower publications state that some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that "most Christians would find them objectionable". For procedures where there is no specific doctrinal prohibition, individuals are to obtain details from medical personnel and then make a personal decision.
+
+=== Prohibited procedures ===
+The following medical procedures are prohibited:
+
+Transfusion of allogeneic whole blood, or of its constituents of red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma.
+
+=== Permitted procedures and products ===
+
+The following procedures and products are not prohibited and are left to the decision of individual members:
+
+Blood donation strictly for the purpose of further fractionation of red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma for either allogeneic or autologous transfusion.
+Autologous transfusion of pre-operative self-donated blood.
+Transfusions of autologous blood as part of a "current therapy".
+Hemodilution, a modified technique in which equipment is arranged in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system.
+Intraoperative blood salvage (autologous) or cell-saver scavenging, a method of collecting blood that has spilled from the circulatory system, washing and re-infusing it.
+Cardiopulmonary bypass, a method in which blood is diverted to an artificial heart-lung machine and directed back into the patient.
+Dialysis, wherein blood circulates through a machine, is filtered and cleaned, then returned to the patient.
+Epidural blood patch, consisting of a small amount of the patient's blood injected into the membrane surrounding the spinal cord.
+Plasmapheresis, wherein blood is withdrawn and filtered, having the plasma removed and substituted, and returned to the patient.
+Labeling or Tagging, blood is withdrawn, mixed with medicine, and then returned to the patient by transfusion.
+Platelet Gel, blood is withdrawn and put into a solution rich in platelets and white blood cells.
+Fractions from red blood cells:
+Hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of red blood cells.
+Fractions from white blood cells:
+Interferons
+Interleukins
+Fractions from platelets:
+Platelet factor 4
+Fractions from blood plasma:
+Albumin
+Globulins
+Cryoprecipitate
+Cryosupernatant (cryo-poor plasma)
+Clotting factors, including Factor VIII and Factor IX derived from large quantities of stored blood
+Wound healing factor
+Erythropoietin (EPO).
+PolyHeme, a blood substitute solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin.
+Hemopure, a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin derived from cow's blood.
+
+== Bloodless surgery ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 2/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+108,000 physicians have expressed their willingness to respect the wishes of Jehovah’s Witnesses and provide bloodless treatment and about 200 hospitals offer bloodless medicine and surgery programs for patients who wish to avoid or limit blood transfusions. Bloodless surgery has been successfully performed in significant procedures including open-heart surgery and total hip replacements. A 2012 study in JAMA Internal Medicine concluded that "Witnesses do not appear to be at increased risk for surgical complications or long-term mortality when comparisons are properly made by transfusion status. Thus, current extreme blood management strategies do not appear to place patients at heightened risk for reduced long-term survival." The study also stated that "Survival estimates of Witnesses were 86%, 69%, 51%, and 34% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after surgery, respectively, vs 74%, 53%, 35%, and 23% among non-Witnesses who received transfusions."
+Bloodless medical and surgical techniques have limitations, and surgeons say the use of various allogeneic blood products and pre-operative autologous blood transfusion are appropriate standards of care for certain patient presentations. The Watch Tower Society states that in medical emergencies where blood transfusions seem to be the only available way to save a life, Jehovah's Witnesses request that doctors provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances with respect for their personal conviction. The Watch Tower Society has acknowledged that some members have died after refusing blood.
+In some countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, a parent or guardian's decision can be legally overruled by medical staff. In this case, medical staff may act without consent, by obtaining a court order in a non-emergency situation, or without such in an emergency. In Japan, children under 15 can be administered blood transfusions against their and their parents' wishes, and children between the ages of 15 and 18 can be similarly treated provided they, or at least one of their legal guardians, consent to the procedure. In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that in cases of "an imminent threat to a child's life", physicians in some cases may "intervene over parental objections". The Michigan Court of Appeals, in deciding Werth v. Taylor, refused to hold a doctor liable for giving a Witness a lifesaving transfusion in an emergency.
+
+=== Hospital Liaison Committees ===
+In 1988, the Watch Tower Society formed Hospital Information Services, a department to help locate doctors or surgical teams who are willing to perform medical procedures on Witnesses without blood transfusions. The department was given oversight of each branch office's Hospital Information Desk, and of one hundred Hospital Liaison Committees established throughout the United States. As of 2003, about 200 hospitals worldwide provide bloodless medical programs. As of 2006, there are 1,535 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide coordinating communication between 110,000 physicians.
+Hospital Information Services researches medical journals to locate information on the availability and effectiveness of bloodless surgery methods. It disseminates information about treatment options to local Hospital Liaison Committees, and to doctors and hospitals.
+
+=== Patient Visitation Groups ===
+Annually since 2004, Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States have been informed that "with your consent, the law allows for the elders to learn of your admission [to hospital] and provide spiritual encouragement", but that "elders serving on a Patient Visitation Group [could] have access to your name" only if patients made their wishes known according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
+Jehovah's Witnesses' branch offices communicate directly with congregations regarding "ways to benefit from the activities of the Hospital Liaison Committee (HLC) and the Patient Visitation Group (PVG)." A Jehovah's Witnesses publication in 2000 reported that Argentina had fewer than a hundred HLC committeemen "giving vital information to the medical community", adding that "their work is complemented by hundreds of other self-sacrificing elders who make up Patient Visitation Groups that call on Witness patients to help and encourage them". Each branch office appoints PVG committeemen, who serve as volunteers.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 3/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Acceptance among Jehovah's Witnesses ==
+Since the elaboration of the blood doctrine to the point of prohibiting transfusion, the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have adopted the organization's position. Those Jehovah's Witnesses who accept the blood doctrine typically hold strongly to their convictions. In the August 1998 issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Donald Ridley, a Jehovah's Witness and organization staff attorney, argued that carrying an up-to-date Medical Directive card issued by the organization indicates that an individual personally agrees with the established religious position of Jehovah's Witness.
+In 1958, The Watchtower reported on a particular member of Jehovah's Witnesses who voluntarily accepted blood transfusion, contrary to Watch Tower Society doctrine. The organization confirms that members have accepted blood transfusions, despite the imposition in 1961 of a communal shunning policy for willful acceptance.
+In 1982, a peer-reviewed case study of a congregation of 59 Jehovah's Witnesses was undertaken by Drs. Larry J. Findley and Paul M. Redstone to evaluate individual belief in respect to blood among Jehovah's Witnesses. The researchers stated, "The members of this congregation are adamant in their refusal to accept all blood products... Not one of the members stated they would receive a blood transfusion even if their refusal meant death, Almost one-third of the respondents had personally refused blood transfusions". However, the study also showed that seven respondents were willing to accept plasma transplants and one member an autotransfusion, both therapies forbidden by Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine at the time. The researchers commented, "There is either some lack of understanding or refusal to follow doctrine among some members". The researchers noted that the contact details of the respondents were provided by congregation elders, which may have influenced the responses given. Another peer-reviewed study examining medical records indicated a similar percentage of Jehovah's Witnesses willing to accept blood transfusions for their children. Young adults also showed a willingness to accept blood transfusions. In another study, Jehovah's Witness patients presented for labor and delivery showed a willingness to accept some form of blood or blood products. Of these patients, 10 percent accepted whole blood transfusion.
+Watch Tower publications have noted that within religions, the personal beliefs of members often differ from official doctrine. Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' acceptance of the organization's official position on blood, Drs Cynthia Gyamfi and Richard Berkowitz state, "It is naïve to assume that all people in any religious group share the exact same beliefs, regardless of doctrine. It is well known that Muslims, Jews, and Christians have significant individual variations in their beliefs. Why should that not also be true of Jehovah's Witnesses?"
+Ambivalence and rejection of the blood doctrine dates back to at least the 1940s. After the Watch Tower Society established the doctrine, teaching that blood should not be eaten (c. 1927–1931), Margaret Buber, who was never a member of the denomination, offered a firsthand eyewitness account of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Nazi Ravensbrück concentration camp. She relates that an overwhelming majority were willing to eat blood sausage despite having alternate food to choose from, specifically after considering biblical statements regarding blood.
+
+== History of doctrine ==
+From 1931, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, Watch Tower Society publications maintained the view of Society founder Charles Taze Russell that the reference to abstaining from the eating of blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19–29 was a "suggestion" to be given to Gentile converts. Watch Tower publications during the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford commended the commercial and emergency uses of blood. A 1925 issue of The Golden Age commended a man for donating blood 45 times without payment. In 1927, The Watchtower noted, without elaboration, that in Genesis 9, God decreed that Noah and his offspring "must not eat the blood, because the life is in the blood". In 1940, Consolation magazine reported on a woman who accidentally shot herself with a revolver in her heart and survived a major surgical procedure during which an attending physician donated a quart of his own blood for transfusion.
+In 1944, with the Watch Tower Society under the administration of president Nathan Homer Knorr, The Watchtower asserted that the decrees contained in Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10–14 forbade the eating or drinking of blood in biblical times "whether by transfusion or by the mouth" and that this applied "in a spiritual way to the consecrated persons of good-will today, otherwise known as 'Jonadabs' of the Lord's 'other sheep'."

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 4/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+In September 1945, representatives of the Watch Tower Society in the Netherlands commented on blood transfusion in the Dutch edition of Consolation. A translation of their comments into English reads: When we lose our life because we refuse inoculations, that does not bear witness as a justification of Jehovah's name. God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside. According to sociologist Richard Singelenbreg, the statement appearing in the Dutch edition of Consolation may have been published without knowledge of the doctrinal position published in the English July 1945 issue of Consolation by the Watch Tower Society's headquarters in the United States.
+In 1945, the application of the doctrine on blood was expanded to prohibit blood transfusions of whole blood, whether allogeneic or autologous. The prohibition did not specify any punitive measures for accepting a transfusion, but by January 1961—in what was later described as an application of "increased strictness"—it was ruled that it was a disfellowshipping offense to conscientiously accept a blood transfusion. The Watch Tower Society warned that accepting a blood transfusion "may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but that at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."
+In September 1956, Awake! stated, "certain blood fractions ... also come under the Scriptural ban". A position against "the various blood fractions" was reiterated in September 1961. In November of the same year, the doctrine was modified to allow individual members to decide whether they could conscientiously accept fractions used from blood for purposes such as vaccination. This position has been expanded on since; the pre-formatted Durable Power of Attorney form provided by the Watch Tower Society includes an option for Jehovah's Witnesses to "accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood."
+In 1964, Jehovah's Witnesses were prohibited from obtaining transfusions for pets, from using fertilizer containing blood, and were even advised (if their conscience troubled them) to write to dog food manufacturers to verify that their products were blood-free. Later that year, it was stated that doctors or nurses who are Jehovah's Witnesses would not administer blood transfusions to fellow dedicated members. As to administering transfusions to non-members, The Watchtower stated that such a decision is "left to the Christian doctor's own conscience."
+In 1982, an article in The Watchtower stated that it would be wrong for Witnesses to allow leeches to feed on their own blood as part of a medical procedure, due to the sacredness of blood.
+In 1989, The Watchtower stated, "Each individual must decide" whether to accept hemodilution and autologous blood salvage (cell saver) procedures. In 1990, a brochure entitled How Can Blood Save Your Life? was released, outlining Jehovah's Witnesses' general doctrine on blood.
+In 2000, the Watch Tower Society's stand on blood fractions was clearly stated. Members were instructed to personally decide if accepting a fraction would violate the doctrine on blood. In a later article, members were reminded that Jehovah's Witnesses do not donate blood or store their own blood prior to surgery.
+In May 2001, the Watch Tower Society revised its medical directives and identity cards addressing its doctrinal position on blood; the revised materials were distributed from May 3, 2001. These revised documents specified that "allogeneic blood transfusions" were unacceptable whereas the former document (dated 1999) stated that "blood transfusions" were unacceptable. The revised 2001 documents were active until December 20, 2001. The Watch Tower Society then rescinded the revised document, stating, "After further review, it has been determined that the cards dated "md-E 6/01" and "ic-E 6/01" should not be used. Please destroy these items and make sure that they are not distributed to the publishers." Elders were instructed to revert to the older 1999 edition of the medical directives and identity cards.
+On 20 March 2026, the blood transfusion policy was revised, allowing members to have their own blood drawn and stored for medical or surgical procedures that may require a transfusion.
+Watch Tower Society publications frequently claim negative consequences of blood transfusions:
+
+A 1951 issue of The Watchtower stated: "And let the transfusion enthusiasts with a savior-complex ponder the fact that on many occasions transfusions do harm, spread disease, and frequently cause deaths, which, of course, are not publicized."
+A 1961 article in The Watchtower quoted Brazilian surgeon Dr. Américo Valério as saying transfusions were often followed by "moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes" and Dr Alonzo Jay Shadman claiming that a person's blood "contains all the peculiarities of the individual ... [including] hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood."
+In 1969, Awake! reported on a man named Robert Khoury, who, after receiving a blood transfusion said, "When I recovered I found I had a terrible desire to steal."
+In 1974, Awake! cited a Centers for Disease Control report that as many as 35,000 deaths and 500,000 illnesses a year might be due to the presence of serum hepatitis in blood for transfusions.
+A 2006 issue of Awake! highlighted dangers from transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI).
+
+== Critical views ==
+Opposition to the Watch Tower doctrines on blood transfusions has come from both members and non-members. A group of dissident Witnesses known as Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood (AJWRB) states that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of blood transfusions and seeks to have some policies changed. In a series of articles in the Journal of Medical Ethics, US neurologist Osamu Muramoto, who is a medical adviser to the AJWRB, has raised issues including what he claims is coercion to refuse transfusions, doctrinal inconsistency, selective use of information by the Watch Tower Society to exaggerate the dangers of transfusions and the use of outdated medical beliefs.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 5/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Scriptural interpretation ===
+Dissident Witnesses say the Society's use of Leviticus 17:12 to support its opposition to blood transfusions conflicts with its own teachings that Christians are not under the Mosaic law. Theologian Anthony Hoekema claims the blood prohibited in Levitical laws was not human, but animal. He cites other authors who support his view that the direction in Acts 15 to abstain from blood was intended not as an everlasting covenant but a means of maintaining a peaceful relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He has described as "absurd literalism" the Witnesses' use of a scriptural prohibition on eating blood to prohibit the medical transfusion of human blood.
+
+=== Coercion ===
+Osamu Muramoto has argued that the refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses of "life-saving" blood treatment creates serious bio-medical ethical issues. He has criticized the "controlling intervention" of the Watch Tower Society by means of what he claims is information control and its policy of penalising members who accept blood transfusions or advocate freedom to choose blood-based treatment. He says the threat of being classified as a disassociated Witness and subsequently shunned by friends and relatives who are members coerces Jehovah's Witnesses to accept and obey the prohibition on blood transfusions. In one particular case involving a Russian district court decision, however, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found nothing in the judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. It noted: "On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation." The court said: "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide ... not to have a blood transfusion. However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values, regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others."
+Muramoto has claimed the intervention of Hospital Liaison Committees can add to "organisational pressure" applied by family members, friends, and congregation members on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment. He notes that while HLC members, who are church elders, "may give the patient 'moral support', the influence of their presence on the patient is known to be tremendous. Case reports reveal JW patients have changed their earlier decision to accept blood treatment after a visit from the elders." He claims such organizational pressure compromises the autonomy of Witness patients and interferes with their privacy and confidentiality. He has advocated a policy in which the Watch Tower organization and congregation elders would not question patients on the details of their medical care and patients would not disclose such information. He says the Society adopted such a policy in 1983 regarding details of sexual activity between married couples.
+Watch Tower spokesman Donald T. Ridley says neither elders nor HLC members are instructed or encouraged to probe into the health care decisions of Witness patients and do not involve themselves in patient hospitalisations unless patients request their assistance. Yet Watch Tower Society HLC representative David Malyon says he would respond to the "sin" of Witnesses he is privy to by effectively saying "Are you going to tell them or shall I!" Nevertheless Ridley says Muramoto's suggestion that Witnesses should be free to disregard Watch Tower scriptural teachings and standards is preposterous. He says loving God means obeying commandments, not disobeying them, and hiding one's disobedience from others.
+Muramoto recommends doctors have a private meeting with patients to discuss their wishes, and that church elders and family members not be present, enabling patients to feel free of church pressure. He suggests doctors question patients on (a) whether they have considered that the Watch Tower Society might soon approve some medical practices they currently find objectionable, in the same manner that it has previously abandoned its opposition to vaccination and organ transplants; (b) whether Witness patients know which blood components are allowed and which are prohibited, and whether they acknowledge that those rulings are organizational policy rather than biblical teachings; and (c) whether they realize that although some Bible scriptures proscribe the eating of blood, eating and transfusing blood have entirely different effects on the body. HLC representative David Malyon has responded that Muramoto's suggested questions are an affront to coerce Jehovah's Witnesses with a "complicated philosophical inquisition" and, if used by doctors, would be "an abusive transformation of the medical role of succour and care into that of devil's advocate and trickster".

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 6/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Selective use of information ===
+Muramoto has claimed many Watch Tower Society publications employ exaggeration and emotionalism to emphasize the dangers of transfusions and the advantages of alternative treatments but present a distorted picture by failing to report any benefits of blood-based treatment. Nor do its publications acknowledge that in some situations, including rapid and massive haemorrhage, there are no alternatives to blood transfusions. He states that Watch Tower Society publications often discuss the risk of death as a result of refusing blood transfusions, but give little consideration to the prolonged suffering and disability, producing an added burden on family and society, that can result from refusal. Attorney and former Witness Kerry Louderback-Wood also claims that Witness publications exaggerate the medical risks of taking blood and the efficiency of non-blood medical therapies in critical situations.
+Douglas E. Cowan, an academic in the sociology of religion, has claimed that members of the Christian countercult movement who criticize the Watch Tower Society make selective use of information themselves. For example, Christian apologist Richard Abanes wrote that their ban on blood transfusions "has led to countless Witness deaths over the years, including many children." Cowan wrote: "When the careful reader checks [Abanes' footnote], however, looking perhaps for some statistical substantiation, he or she finds only a statistical conjecture based on 1980 Red Cross blood use figures." Cowan also says Abanes omits "critical issues" in an attempt to "present the most negative face possible." Cowan wrote that "the reader is left with the impression that the Watchtower Society knowingly presides over a substantial number of preventable deaths each year."
+
+=== Outdated medical beliefs ===
+Osamu Muramoto says the Watch Tower Society relies on discarded, centuries-old medical beliefs to support its assertion that blood transfusions are the same as eating blood. The Watch Tower Society's 1990 brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? quoted 17th-century anatomist Thomas Bartholin to support its view. Muramoto says the view that blood is nourishment—still espoused in Watch Tower publications—was abandoned by modern medicine many decades ago. He has criticized an analogy commonly used by the Society in which it states: "Consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?" Muramoto says the analogy is false, explaining: "Orally ingested alcohol is absorbed as alcohol and circulated as such in the blood, whereas orally eaten blood is digested and does not enter the circulation as blood. Blood introduced directly into the veins circulates and functions as blood, not as nutrition. Hence, blood transfusion is a form of cellular organ transplantation. And ... organ transplants are now permitted by the WTS." He says the objection to blood transfusions on the basis of biblical proscriptions against eating blood is similar to the refusal of a heart transplant on the basis that a doctor warned a patient to abstain from eating meat because of his high cholesterol level.
+David Malyon, chairman of the English Hospital Liaison Committee in Luton, England, has claimed that Muramoto's discussion of the differences between consuming blood and alcohol is pedantic and says blood laws in the Bible are based upon the reverence for life and its association with blood, and that laws should be kept in the spirit as much as in the letter.
+
+=== Inconsistency ===
+
+Muramoto has described as peculiar and inconsistent the Watch Tower policy of acceptance of all the individual components of blood plasma as long as they are not taken at the same time. He says the Society offers no biblical explanation for differentiating between prohibited treatments and those considered a "matter of conscience", explaining the distinction is based entirely on arbitrary decisions of the Governing Body, to which Witnesses must adhere strictly on the premise of them being Bible-based truth. He has questioned why white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted. He has questioned why donating blood and storing blood for autologous transfusion is deemed wrong, but the Watch Tower Society permits the use of blood components that must be donated and stored before Witnesses use them. He has questioned why Witnesses, although viewing blood as sacred and symbolizing life, are prepared to let a person die by placing more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes.
+Kerry Louderback-Wood says that by labeling the currently acceptable blood fractions as "minute" in relation to whole blood, the Watch Tower Society causes followers to misunderstand the scope and extent of allowed fractions.
+The Watch Tower Society's response is that the real issue is not of the fluid per se, but of respect and obedience to God. They say their principle of abstaining from blood as a display of respect is demonstrated by the fact that members are allowed to eat meat that still contains some blood. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God, and then a person can eat the meat even though it may contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses' view of meat and blood is different from that of kosher Jewish adherents, who go to great lengths to remove minor traces of blood.
+
+== See also ==
+Knocking, a documentary on Witnesses that features bloodless medicine.
+The Children Act, a 2014 novel by Ian McEwan in which the issue is central to the plot
+The Children Act, a 2017 film adaptation of the novel
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions-6.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions"
+chunk: 7/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:43.407186+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Further reading ==
+Sloan JM, Ballen K (May 2008). "SCT in Jehovah's Witnesses: the bloodless transplant". Bone Marrow Transplant. 41 (10): 837–44. doi:10.1038/bmt.2008.5. PMID 18246110. S2CID 12256769.
+Bayam L, Tait WF, Macartney ID (2007). "Successful repair of a giant abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm in a Jehovah's Witness". Vasc Endovascular Surg. 41 (5): 460–2. doi:10.1177/1538574407303172. PMID 17942864. S2CID 20999081.
+Massiah N, Athimulam S, Loo C, Okolo S, Yoong W (October 2007). "Obstetric care of Jehovah's Witnesses: a 14-year observational study". Arch Gynecol Obstet. 276 (4): 339–43. doi:10.1007/s00404-007-0346-0. PMID 17522882. S2CID 8416402.
+Putney, Leeann J. (July–September 2007). "Bloodless cardiac surgery: not just possible, but preferable". Crit Care Nurs Q. 30 (3): 263–70. doi:10.1097/01.CNQ.0000278927.44691.8c. PMID 17579310. S2CID 44846538. "Free copy" (PDF). CEConnection for Allied Health. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
+Eilers, June; Rounds, Luisa (2007). "Blood Transfusion or Not: A Literature Review of Bloodless Interventions to Treat Cancer Related Anemia". Oncology Nursing Forum. 34 (2): 553–554. Archived from the original on April 15, 2009.
+
+== External links ==
+Official website of Jehovah's Witnesses
+How Can Blood Save Your Life? published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
+Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions? from the official website
+Bloodless Surgeries and Jehovah's Witnesses PBS Religion & Ethics
+Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood
+BBC News - Refusing blood 'source of regret'
+Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood policy by Raymond Franz, a former member of Jehovah' Witnesses' Governing Body
+Ethical Issues in Compulsory Medical Treatment: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses Archived April 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
+Jehovah's Witnesses teachings on blood from religioustolerance.org
+The Jensen Letters—correspondence between a Jehovah's Witness elder and the Watch Tower Society seeking answers to critical questions about important aspects of their blood doctrine. The correspondence begins in 1998 and concludes in 2003 with the writer's resignation as an elder.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "John Templeton Foundation"
+chunk: 1/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:44.745375+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The John Templeton Foundation (Templeton Foundation) is a philanthropic organization founded by John Templeton in 1987. Templeton became wealthy as a contrarian investor, and wanted to support progress in religious and spiritual knowledge, especially at the intersection of religion and science. He also sought to fund research on methods to promote and develop moral character, intelligence, and creativity in people, and to promote free markets. In 2008, the foundation was awarded the National Humanities Medal. In 2016, Inside Philanthropy called it "the oddest—or most interesting—big foundation around."
+Templeton was chairman until he died in 2008. Templeton's son, John Templeton Jr., was its president from its founding until his death in 2015, at which point Templeton Jr.'s daughter, Heather Templeton Dill, became president. The foundation administers the annual Templeton Prize for achievements in the field of spirituality, including those at the intersection of science and religion.  It has an extensive grant-funding program (around $150 million per year as of 2016) aimed at supporting research in physics, biology, psychology, and the social sciences as well as philosophy and theology. It also supports programs related to genetics, "exceptional cognitive talent and genius" and "individual freedom and free markets". The foundation receives both praise and criticism for its awards, regarding the breadth of its coverage, and ideological perspectives asserted to be associated with them.
+
+== Leadership ==
+John Templeton (29 November 1912 – 8 July 2008) was an American-born British investor, banker, fund manager, and philanthropist. In 1954, he entered the mutual fund market and created the Templeton Growth Fund. 
+John Templeton Jr. was president of the foundation from its inception in 1987. He worked as a pediatric surgeon, and he was chief of pediatric surgery at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in 1995, when he stopped practicing medicine to join the foundation. He took over as chairman when his father died. He was an evangelical Christian and supported various American conservative causes. He always maintained that he tried to run the foundation according to his father's wishes instead of his own. He died in 2015.
+Heather Templeton Dill, the daughter of John Templeton Jr., became president in 2015 and was succeeded by Timothy Dalrymple in July 2025.
+
+== Endowment ==
+Templeton bequeathed around $500 million to the foundation when he died in 2008. As of 2015 the foundation's total endowment had grown to $3.34 billion. The foundation reports that it has issued over 3,300 grants, with over 2,800 of those going to recipients in North America. In 2016, the foundation disbursed over $151,000,000 in grants.
+
+== Prizes ==
+
+The Templeton Prize was established by John Templeton, and he administered the prize until the foundation was established in 1987, which took it over. The prize has "a value of about $1.7 million, making it one of the world’s largest annual awards given to an individual".
+The early prizes were given solely to people who had made great achievements in the field of religion; Mother Teresa received the inaugural award in 1973, with other early winners including Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1975), Chiara Lubich (1977), and Nikkyō Niwano (1979). In the 1980s, John Templeton began considering the intersection of science and religion, and after he appointed two scientists to the judging panel, scientists who worked at this intersection began receiving it; Alister Hardy was the first, in 1987. More recent winners of the Templeton Prize have included the Dalai Lama in 2012, King Abdullah II of Jordan in 2018, Brazilian Jewish physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser in 2019, and primatologist Jane Goodall in 2021.The 2025 winner is the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians.
+
+== Grants ==
+Templeton "was a great believer in progress, learning, initiative and the power of human imagination—not to mention the free-enterprise system". While most of its funding goes to topics in science, philosophy, and religion, around 40 percent of its annual grants go to character development, genius, freedom, free enterprise, and fields associated with classical liberalism. Grants are given to people across all religions since Templeton believed progress in the field of spirituality could come from anywhere. The field of grants was broadened in the 1980s to include scientific fields like neuroscience, psychology, and cosmology, seen as being aligned with the mission.
+Some research programs supported by the foundation have included the development of positive psychology by Martin Seligman, Angela Duckworth and others; the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University; the Gen2Gen Encore Prize; the World Science Festival; Pew religious demographics surveys; and programs that engage with Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions, including support for dialogue with scientists in synagogues, and a grant for advancing scientific literacy in madrasas.
+As of 2015, the foundation awarded nearly a billion dollars in grants and charitable contributions and was the 55th largest grantor among American foundations.
+The top ten largest grants as of 2018 were:
+
+=== Physics ===
+
+==== QISS (Quantum Information Structure of Spacetime) ====
+The John Templeton Foundation granted over two million dollars in 2019, and then 4.5 million dollars in 2022 to QISS. The QISS consortium brings together specialists from quantum gravity, quantum information, foundations of quantum mechanics, as well Philosophy of Science. According to the organization, "QISS aims to found the physics of quantum spacetime on an information theoretical basis, bring within reach empirical access to quantum gravity phenomenology leveraging rapidly advancing quantum technologies, and promote interactions between physicists and philosophers. The broader scope of the consortium is to establish a long-term research program that brings together the represented communities." Marios Christodoulou and Carlo Rovelli are the project leaders.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "John Templeton Foundation"
+chunk: 2/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:44.745375+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Black Hole Initiative ====
+In 2016, the foundation granted over seven million dollars to the Black Hole Initiative (BHI), an interdisciplinary program at Harvard University that includes the fields of Astronomy, Physics and Philosophy, and is said to be the first center in the world to focus on the study of black holes. Notable principal participants include Sheperd Doeleman, Peter Galison, Avi Loeb, Ramesh Narayan, Andrew Strominger, and Shing-Tung Yau. The BHI Inauguration was held on 18 April 2016 and was attended by Stephen Hawking; related workshop events were held on 19 April 2016.
+
+==== Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute ====
+In 2015, the Santa Fe Institute was awarded a three-year, $2.5 million grant to support the development of a general theory of complexity, constituting "a concise, parsimonious, and potentially mathematizable framework for understanding complex adaptive systems".
+
+=== Biology and human development ===
+
+In 2016, the foundation awarded $5.4 million to the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (FfAME) to study the origin of life on Earth, particularly investigating questions of how early RNA interacted with water, which is necessary for life but also degrades RNA, and how the introduction of energy to organic materials yielded life rather than turning it into tar. The project is headed by molecular biophysicist and chemist Steven A. Benner. The foundation also awarded an $8 million grant to a program examining a theory in evolutionary biology called extended evolutionary synthesis. This project is headed by evolutionary biologist Kevin Laland.
+Several grants specifically supported inquiry into various aspects of human evolution. A 2014 grant of $4.9 million supports an effort at Arizona State University by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson to explore how we became human, and a $3.2 million grant to Indiana University and the Stone Age Institute supports the study of "what factors led human ancestors to develop skills like making tools, developing language, and seeking out information".
+In March 2019, the foundation provided the bulk of a group of grants adding up to over $7 million to enable the Institute for Interdisciplinary Brain and Behavioral Science (The Brain Institute) at Chapman University to examine "how the human brain enables conscious control of decisions and actions".
+A grant from the foundation supports a study of religion and health conducted by Tyler VanderWeele of Harvard University. VanderWeele is the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and co-director the University's Initiative on Health, Religion and Spirituality. His research has focused on the application of causal inference to epidemiology, as well as on the relationship between religion and health.
+In June 2019, the foundation awarded one of its largest grants to the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School for its Ancient DNA Atlas project that seeks to sequence the DNA of ancient human remains to tell the story of human migration and development through the addition of DNA sequences of 10,000 individuals spanning 50,000 years. The funding was used to solve a riddle that had puzzled historians, classicists, linguists, anthropologists and archaeologists for 200 years - whether the bulk of the European civilization had arrived from Anatolia or the Pontic Steppes of Central Asia, and how Indo-European languages spread over an enormous geographical area from Britain to India, becoming the largest linguistic group today.
+The funding was used to embrace a multi-disciplinary approach and crowd-sourced results before the final manuscripts were completed, receiving commentary and feedback from academics of various institutions on several continents, according to geneticist David Reich, lead researcher on the project. The study was also funded by the governments of the US, Russia, Germany (Max Planck Institute), European Union and India. Results have been published in Science and Cell.
+
+=== Social sciences ===
+
+==== Pew Research Center ====
+
+The Pew Research Center, an American fact tank or research organization, has been "jointly and generously funded" by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the foundation for its studies focusing on demographics of religions in the world, part of the series entitled Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures.
+
+==== Center on Religion and Chinese Society ====
+The Center on Religion and Chinese Society of the Purdue University in Indiana is funded by the foundation. The current director of the center, the Chinese American Christian scholar Fenggang Yang, has been granted more than $9.5 million to support his projects, The center has published research on religion in China, especially based on Yang's own theory of the so-called "religious market", with speculations were based on a report of the Pew Research Center, another publication backed by the foundation. Some scholars of Chinese religion have criticized Yang's sociological theories about religion in China, although the New York Times has referred to Yang as "a pioneer in the study of the sociology of religion in China", and the Wall Street Journal has deemed him a "leading scholar on Chinese church-society relation".
+
+=== Psychology ===
+
+==== Positive psychology, religion and medicine ====
+Harold G. Koenig, Dale Mathews, David Larson, Jeffrey Levin, Herbert Benson and Michael McCullough are scholars to whom the foundation has provided funds to "report the positive relations" between religion and medicine. One field in which the foundation has been particularly supportive is positive psychology, as developed by Martin Seligman, Angela Duckworth and others. Positive psychology is "the scientific study of  what makes life most worth living", or "the scientific study of positive human functioning and flourishing on multiple levels that include the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global dimensions of life". Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life", reflection about what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. Positive psychology began as a new domain of psychology in 1998 when Seligman chose it as the theme for his term as president of the American Psychological Association.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "John Templeton Foundation"
+chunk: 3/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:44.745375+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Scientific development of virtue interventions ====
+In 2019, the foundation awarded $2.6 million grant to Sarah Schnitker of Baylor University and Benjamin Houltberg of the University of Southern California to "galvanize widespread scientific development of virtue interventions for adolescents across a diversity of contexts".
+A grant from the foundation supports a study of religion and health conducted by Tyler VanderWeele of Harvard University. VanderWeele is the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and co-director the University's Initiative on Health, Religion and Spirituality. His research has focused on the application of causal inference to epidemiology, as well as on the relationship between religion and health.
+
+=== Science education ===
+The foundation has provided grants in support of dialogue with scientists in synagogues, and a grant for advancing scientific literacy in madrasas. It has also sponsored a major, multi-year, multi-million-dollar effort to integrate science education in North American seminaries, including Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, and Catholic and Orthodox institutions.
+
+=== History ===
+The foundation provided funding for the book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, which was edited by historian of science Ronald Numbers.
+
+== Reception ==
+The foundation has received both praise and criticism for its awards. The French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) has been critical of the foundation for funding "initiatives to bring science and religion closer together." Science journalist Chris Mooney, an atheist, received a 2010 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship. In a 2010 article on his Discover magazine blog, Mooney wrote, "I can honestly say that I have found the lectures and presentations that we've heard here to be serious and stimulating. The same goes for the discussions that have followed them".
+Some scholars have expressed concerns about the nature of the awards, research projects, and publications backed by the foundation. These concerns include questioning its integrity, cronyism, and its Templeton Freedom Awards. Journalist Sunny Bains pointed out in 2011 that Templeton Freedom Awards are administered by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a group that opposes taking action on climate change and defends the tobacco industry, which also gives the foundation funding. Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle listed the foundation as among the largest financial contributors to the climate change denial movement between 2003 and 2010.
+
+=== Religious funding ===
+
+Critics have asserted that the foundation has supported Christian-oriented research in the field of the scientific study of religions. Wired magazine noted in 1999 that "the scientific-review and grant-award process at the Templeton Foundation is run by Charles Harper, an Oxford-trained planetary scientist specializing in star and planet formation who has a degree in theology. Harper himself is an Evangelical Christian; the scientists who apply to the foundation for support, though, are not required to state their religious beliefs, or to have any." In 2006, John Horgan, a 2005 Templeton-Cambridge fellow then working as a freelance science journalist, wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education that he had enjoyed his fellowship, but felt guilty that by taking money from the foundation, he had contributed to the mingling of science with religion. Horgan stated "misgivings about the foundation's agenda of reconciling religion and science". He said that a conference he attended favored scientists who "offered a perspective clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity." Horgan fears recipients of large grants from the foundation sometimes write what the foundation wants rather than what they believe. Richard Dawkins, in his 2006 book The God Delusion, interprets Horgan as saying that "Templeton's money corrupts science", and characterizes the prize as going "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". Donald Wiebe, a scholar of religious studies at the University of Toronto, similarly criticized the foundation in a 2009 article entitled Religious Biases in Funding Religious Studies Research?. According to him, the foundation supports Christian bias in the field of religious studies, by deliberately imposing constraints to steer the results of the research.
+Paul Davies, physicist and 1995 Templeton Prize laureate, gave a defense of the foundation's role in the scientific community in the Times Higher Education Supplement in March 2005. In 2010, journalist Nathan Schneider opined that "at worst, Templeton could be called heterodox and naïve". In 2011, the science journal Nature took note of the ongoing controversy among scientists over working with Templeton. Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist, told Nature writer Mitchell Waldrop that the foundation's purpose is to eliminate the wall between religion and science, and to use science's prestige to validate religion. Other scientists, including Foundation grantees like University of Chicago psychologist John Cacioppo and Anthony Aguirre, a University of California—Santa Cruz astrophysicist, told Nature that they have never felt pressured by Templeton to spin their research toward religion-friendly conclusions.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "John Templeton Foundation"
+chunk: 4/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:44.745375+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Intelligent design ===
+A 2007 article in the Los Angeles Times described the foundation as having "drawn criticism for its early support of intelligent design". Charles L. Harper Jr., a former senior vice president of the foundation, told BusinessWeek in 2005 that the foundation had become one of the "principal critics" of the intelligent design movement and funded projects that challenged that movement. Harper Jr. told The New York Times the same year: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".
+Some organizations funded by the foundation in the 1990s gave book-writing grants to Guillermo Gonzalez and to William Dembski, proponents of intelligent design who later joined the Discovery Institute. The foundation also gave money directly to the Discovery Institute which in turn passed it through to Baylor University, which used the funds to support Dembski's salary at its short-lived Michael Polanyi Center. The foundation funded projects by Bruce L. Gordon, associate director of the center, after the center was dissolved. Some media outlets described the foundation as a supporter of intelligent design during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District litigation in the mid-2000s, a charge which the foundation denied. The foundation "explicitly warns intelligent-design researchers not to bother submitting proposals: they will not be considered."
+In March 2009, the Discovery Institute accused the foundation of blocking its involvement in Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories, a Vatican-backed, Templeton-funded conference in Rome. On the lack of involvement of any speakers supporting intelligent design, the conference director Rev. Marc Leclerc said, "We think that it's not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one ... This makes a dialogue difficult, maybe impossible". In 2011, The Times stated that the Templeton Prize is "explicitly critical of such pseudoscientific gibberish as intelligent design".
+
+=== Conservatism ===
+A number of journalists have highlighted connections with conservative causes. A 1997 article in Slate written by David Plotz said the foundation had given a significant amount of financial support to groups, causes and individuals considered conservative, including gifts to Gertrude Himmelfarb, Milton Friedman, Walter E. Williams, Julian Lincoln Simon and Mary Lefkowitz, and called John Templeton Jr. a "sugar daddy" for such thinkers. The foundation also has a history of supporting the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank and The Heritage Foundation conservative think-tank, as well as projects at major research centers and universities such as Hernando de Soto's Instituto Libertad Y Democracia and the X Prize Foundation, which is described as "a nonprofit organization that designs and manages public competitions intended to encourage technological development that could benefit humanity".
+In a 2007 article in The Nation Barbara Ehrenreich drew attention to the foundation's former president John M. Templeton Jr. funding of the conservative group Freedom's Watch, and referred to the foundation as a "right-wing venture". Pamela Thompson, former Vice President of Communications of the foundation, replied that "the Foundation is, and always has been, run in accordance with the wishes of Sir John Templeton Sr, who laid very strict criteria for its mission and approach", that it is "a non-political entity with no religious bias" and it "is totally independent of any other organisation and therefore neither endorses, nor contributes to political candidates, campaigns, or movements of any kind".
+
+== Templeton Press ==
+The foundation also funds an affiliated publisher, Templeton Press, which from 2004 to 2010 published the periodical In Character: A Journal of Everyday Virtues. From 2000 to 2003 it published Research news & opportunities in science and theology, in which Bruce L. Gordon published a piece on the state of "design theory" in the aftermath of the Michael Polanyi Center affair. Templeton Press has a partnership with the Yale University Press, producing books on character and Foundational Questions in Science.
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Psychology_&_Theology-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Journal of Psychology & Theology"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Psychology_&_Theology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:45.997762+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Journal of Psychology & Theology (JPT) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Biola University's Rosemead School of Psychology and has been operating continuously since 1973. JPT is a quarterly journal publishing original research on the integration of psychology and Christian theology.  Empirical studies and theoretical pieces investigating the interrelationships between psychological (e.g., clinical, experimental, industrial/organizational, social, theoretical) and theological topics of study are considered.  Scholarship that explores the application of these interrelationships in a variety of contexts (e.g., mental health counseling, education and training, organizational leadership, churches and other Christian ministry contexts) and/or from an intercultural perspective are encouraged.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+---
+title: "Law of three stages"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:47.323804+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The law of three stages is an idea developed by Auguste Comte in his work The Course in Positive Philosophy. It states that society as a whole, and each particular science, develops through three mentally conceived stages: (1) the theological stage, (2) the metaphysical stage, and (3) the positive stage.
+
+
+== Stages of sociology ==
+
+
+=== Theological ===
+The Theological stage refers to the appeal to personified deities. During the earlier stages, people believed that all the phenomena of nature were the creation of the divine or supernatural. Adults and children failed to discover the natural causes of various phenomena and hence attributed them to a supernatural or divine power. Comte broke this stage into 3 sub-stages:
+
+Fetishism
+The primary stage of the theological stage of thinking. Throughout this stage, primitive people believe that inanimate objects have living spirits in them, also known as animism. People worship inanimate objects like trees, stones, a pieces of wood, volcanic eruptions, etc. Through this practice, people believe that all things root from a supernatural source.
+Polytheism
+At one point, Fetishism began to bring about doubt in the minds of its believers. As a result, people turned towards polytheism: the explanation of things through the use of many Gods.  Primitive people believe that all natural forces are controlled by different Gods; a few examples would be the God of water, God of rain, God of fire, God of air, God of earth, etc.
+Monotheism
+Monotheism means believing in one God or God in one; attributing all to a single, supreme deity. Primitive people believe a single theistic entity is responsible for the existence of the universe.
+
+
+=== Metaphysical ===
+The Metaphysical stage is an extension of the theological stage. It refers to explanation by impersonal abstract concepts. People often try to characterize God as an abstract being. They believe that an abstract power or force guides and determines events in the world. Metaphysical thinking discards belief in a concrete God. For example: In Classical Hindu Indian society, the principle of the transmigration of the soul, the conception of rebirth, and notions of pursuant were largely governed by metaphysical uphill.
+This stage that the power and money is most important
+
+
+=== Positivism ===
+The Positivity stage, also known as the scientific stage, refers to scientific explanation based on observation, experiment, and comparison. Positive explanations rely upon a distinct method, the scientific method, for their justification. Today people attempt to establish cause-and-effect relationships. Positivism is a purely intellectual way of looking at the world; as well, it also emphasizes observation and classification of data and facts. This is the highest, most evolved behavior according to Comte.
+
+
+== Hierarchy of science ==
+Comte, however, was conscious of the fact that the three stages of thinking may or do coexist in the same society or the same mind and may not always be successive.
+Comte proposed a hierarchy of the sciences based on historical sequence, with areas of knowledge passing through these stages in order of complexity. The simplest and most remote areas of knowledge—mechanical or physical—are the first to become scientific. These are followed by the more complex sciences, those considered closest to us.
+
+The sciences, then, according to Comte's "law", developed in this order:
+
+Mathematics
+Astronomy
+Physics
+Chemistry
+Biology
+Sociology
+A science of society is thus the "Queen science" in Comte's hierarchy as it would be the most fundamentally complex. 
+Since Comte saw social science as an observation of human behavior and knowledge, his definition of sociology included observing humanity’s development of science itself. Because of this, Comte presented this introspective field of study as the science above all others. Sociology would both complete the body of positive sciences by discussing humanity as the last unstudied scientific field and would link the fields of science together in human history, showing the "intimate interrelation of scientific and social development".
+To Comte, the law of three stages made the development of sociology inevitable and necessary. Comte saw the formation of his law as an active use of sociology, but this formation was dependent on other sciences reaching the positive stage; Comte’s three-stage law would not have evidence for a positive stage without the observed progression of other sciences through these three stages. Thus, sociology and its first law of three stages would be developed after other sciences were developed out of the metaphysical stage, with the observation of these developed sciences becoming the scientific evidence used in a positive stage of sociology. This special dependence on other sciences contributed to Comte’s view of sociology being the most complex. It also explains sociology being the last science to be developed.
+
+
+== Comte's view ==
+Comte saw the results of his three-stage law and sociology as not only inevitable but good. In Comte’s eyes, the positive stage was not only the most evolved but also the stage best for mankind. Through the continuous development of positive sciences, Comte hoped that humans would perfect their knowledge of the world and make real progress to improve the welfare of humanity. He acclaimed the positive stage as the "highest accomplishment of the human mind"  and as having "natural superiority"  over the other, more primitive stages.
+Overall, Comte saw his law of three stages as the start of the scientific field of sociology as a positive science. He believed this development was the key to completing positive philosophy and would finally allow humans to study every observable aspect of the universe. For Comte, sociology’s human-centered studies would relate the fields of science to each other as progressions in human history and make positive philosophy one coherent body of knowledge. Comte presented the positive stage as the final state of all sciences, which would allow human knowledge to be perfected, leading to human progress.
+
+
+== Critiques of the law ==
+Historian William Whewell wrote "Mr. Comte's arrangement of the progress of science as successively metaphysical and positive, is contrary to history in fact, and contrary to sound philosophy in principle." The historian of science H. Floris Cohen has made a significant effort to draw the modern eye towards this first debate on the foundations of positivism.
+In contrast, within an entry dated early October 1838 Charles Darwin wrote in one of his then private notebooks that "M. Comte's idea of a theological state of science [is a] grand idea."
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+Antipositivism
+Religion of Humanity
+Sociological positivism
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+History Guide

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+title: "List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:48.645194+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+This is a list of notable individuals who have focused on studying the intersection of religion and science.
+
+== A ==
+S. Alexander
+Gordon W. Allport: noted Behavioural Psychologist & author of The Individual and his Religion (1951).
+Nathan Aviezer
+
+== B ==
+Ian Barbour: author of Issues in Science and Religion (1966).
+E.W. Barnes
+Stephen M. Barr: author of The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion (2016).  Description & arrow/scrollable preview.
+Arnold O. Benz: astrophysicist at ETH Zurich, author of The Future of the Universe (2002) and Astrophysics and Creation (2017)
+Mani Lal Bhaumik: author of Code Name God (2005).
+Nader El-Bizri: author of The Phenomenological Quest between Avicenna and Heidegger, general editor of the series Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (tenth century encyclopaedia of science, philosophy and religion), co-Editor of Islamic Philosophy and Occidental Phenomenology in Dialogue, and editor of the "Islam Division" of Encyclopaedia of Sciences and Religions.
+John Hedley Brooke: Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford (1999–2006)
+Ralph Wendell Burhoe: an important twentieth century pioneer interpreter of the importance of religion for a scientific and technological world.
+E. A. Burtt: author of The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (1925).
+
+== C ==
+Geoffrey Cantor: author of Quakers, Jews, and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and the Sciences in Britain, 1650-1900 (2005).
+Fritjof Capra: author of The Tao of Physics (1975).
+Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: author of Science and Christ (1965, English Translation).
+Francis S. Collins: director of the Human Genome Project, author of The Language of God (2006).
+C. A. Coulson: author of Science and Christian Belief (1955).
+Alistair Cameron Crombie: author of Augustine to Galileo: The History of Science A.D. 400 - 1650.
+
+== D ==
+Richard Dawkins: has written about the relationship between science and religion for a popular audience with books such as A Devil's Chaplain and The God Delusion. Dawkins has also engaged in public debates on the topic.
+Pierre Duhem: well known for his works on the philosophy and history of science, especially in the Middle Ages.
+
+== E ==
+Arthur Eddington: author of The Nature of the Physical World (1928) and Why I Believe in God: Science and Religion, as a Scientist Sees It (1930).
+
+== F ==
+John Freely: author of Aladdin's Lamp: How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World and Before Galileo: The Birth of Modern Science in Medieval Europe.
+
+== G ==
+Stephen Jay Gould: introduced the concept of non-overlapping magisteria, arguing that religion and science attempt to describe different domains of knowledge.
+Edward Grant: author of The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996), God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), and Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus (2004)
+Nidhal Guessoum: author of  Islam's Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science (2010)
+
+== H ==
+John Habgood: author of Religion and Science (1964).
+J.S. Haldane
+Charles Hartshorne: author of Philosophers Speak of God (1953).
+Waldemar Haffkine
+Peter Harrison: author of The Territories of Science and Religion (2015).
+John F. Haught: author of Science and Religion—From Conflict to Conversation (1995).
+Philip Hefner: author of The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (1993) and coined an influential phrase when he defined human beings as created co-creators. He was a longtime editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science.
+John L. Heilbron: author of The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (1999).
+Karl Heim: author involving in the religion and science dialogue, his thought on quantum mechanics has been seen as the precursor to much of the current studies on divine action.
+Michał Heller: author of Creative tension essays on science and religion: Essays on Science and Religion (2003).
+Mary B. Hesse: author of Science and The Human Imagination: Aspects of the History of Logic of Physical Science (1954).
+Martinez Hewlett: author of the chapter on "Molecular Biology and Religion" (pp. 172–186) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006)  
+Reijer Hooykaas: author of Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (1972) 
+Julian Huxley
+
+== I ==
+W.R. Inge
+
+== J ==
+L.P. Jacks
+Stanley Jaki: leading contributor to the philosophy of science and the history of science, and in particular their relationship to Christianity.
+Malcolm Jeeves: formerly President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, founder of the St Andrews Psychology Department, and author of, most recently, with Warren S. Brown "Neuroscience, Psychology, and Religion: Illusions, Delusions, and Realities about Human Nature" (2009) and "From Cells to Souls-and Beyond" (2003)
+
+== K ==
+Donald E. Knuth: author of Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About  (2001) 
+
+== L ==
+Denis Lamoureux: holds PhDs in both theology and biology and is also a retired dentist, has written several books on the relationship between science and religion, including the Bible & Ancient Science (McGahan Publishing House, 2020), has debated proponents of ID, atheistic evolution, and young earth creationism, including Stephen Meyer, Lawrence Krauss, and Kent Hovind), and is professor of science and religion at the University of Alberta.
+John Lennox: has written several books on the relationship between science and religion and has also debated Richard Dawkins on the topic.
+David C. Lindberg: co-editors of two anthologies on the relationship between religion and science.
+David N. Livingstone: author of Dealing with Darwin: Place, Politics, and Rhetoric in Religious Engagements with Evolution (2014).
+
+== M ==
+B. Malinowski
+Henry Margenau: co-author of Cosmos, Bios, Theos Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens (1992)
+Alister McGrath: Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford (2014–)
+Robert K. Merton: sociologist proposing the Merton Thesis
+E. A. Milne: author of Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God (1952).
+Nancey Murphy co-author with George Ellis of On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+title: "List of scholars on the relationship between religion and science"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholars_on_the_relationship_between_religion_and_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:31:48.645194+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== N ==
+Seyyed Hossein Nasr: author of the chapter on Islam and science (pp. 71–86) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) 
+Ronald L. Numbers: co-editors of two anthologies on the relationship between religion and science.
+
+== O ==
+Thomas Jay Oord: author of Defining Love (2010).
+
+== P ==
+Kuruvilla Pandikattu: Author of six books on the relationship between Science and Religion, including Religion@scientist.com and Ever Approachable, Never Attainable: Science-Religion Dialogue in India.
+Arthur Peacocke: author of Creation and the World of Science (1979).
+Robert T. Pennock: author of Tower of Babel a strong defense of Darwinian evolution and the chapter on "The Pre-modern Sins of Intelligent Design" (pp. 732–748) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) 
+John Polkinghorne: author of Science and Theology (1998) and Faith, Science and Understanding (2000).
+William G. Pollard: author of a significant amount of material in the areas of science and religion such as Physicist and Christian: A dialogue between the communities (1961)
+William B. Provine: author of the chapter on "Evolution, Religion, and Science" (pp. 652–666) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) 
+Mihajlo Pupin
+
+== R ==
+Ian Ramsey: author of Religious Language (1957).
+Fazale Rana: CEO of Reasons to Believe
+Hugh Ross (creationist): founder of Reasons to Believe
+Bertrand Russell
+
+== S ==
+Norbert M. Samuelson: author of the chapter on Judaism and Science (pp. 41–56) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) 
+Nicholas Saunders: author of Divine Action and Modern Science (2002).
+Harold K. Schilling: author of Science and Religion (1962).
+H. R. L. Sheppard
+
+== T ==
+J. Arthur Thomson
+Paul Tillich
+Thomas F. Torrance: author of Space, Time and Incarnation, Space Time and Resurrection, and Theological Science literary executor for the philosopher and scientist Michael Polanyi, and winner of 1978 Templeton Prize.
+Jonathan R. Topham: author of Reading the Book of Nature: How Eight Best Sellers Reconnected Christianity and the Sciences on the Eve of the Victorian Age (2022).
+Renny Thomas: author of Science and Religion in India: Beyond Disenchantment (London: Routledge, 2022)
+
+== U ==
+James Ungureanu: author of Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition – Retracing the Origins of Conflict (2019).
+
+== W ==
+Charles D. Walcott
+B. Alan Wallace: author of the chapter on Buddhism and Science (pp. 24–40) in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006) 
+David Wilkinson: author of Science, religion, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (2013).
+
+== Z ==
+
+== See also ==
+Interfaith dialogue
+Relationship between religion and science
+List of Christians in science and technology
+List of participants in the dialogue of religion and science
+
+== References ==