Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Call for Discussion rather than Wholesale Reverts (Edit Warring)

In a Good Faith effort to seek and obtain a consensus, I am requesting review of a number of edits which I recently made and which were immediately reverted in toto without any specific comment, just a blanket accusation of being "inaccurate & POV" and/or "controversial". Some of these edits are grammar fixes and minor re-arranging of text for flow, not exactly controversial stuff.

I purposely made these edits individually to facilitate discussion. I would appreciate the same consideration that any of the contributors here would expect regarding their own edits/revisions.

After a careful review, please indicate specifically what issues, if any, you might have with each individual edit. Suggestions for alternate/improved wordings would be greatly appreciated. I have put DIFF links below for your convenience:

1. Removed awkwardly worded phrase which was reinserted in my very next edit in what was meant to be a better location for readability.
2. Added date of reference in text for historical context
3. Modified verb tense from present to past to reflect that this is a 7 year old citation
4. Quoted Mr. Evans exactly for accuracy. I believe the previous wording was WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. If you disagree, please state your reasons specifically.
5. Added Skip Evans quote - This is from the same cited source and clarifies subject of "natural selection" to debate. (This is a distinction which Dave souza, OrangeMarlin, Hrafn and others have raised on several occasions.)
6. Reinserted text re Evans' assertion statement is confusing/misleading. I am scrupulously trying to avoid even the impression of POV.
7. Punctuation - I added a comma.
8. Three word changes made in a Good Faith attempt to be factually accurate. Please look at each of the three word changes and address each one individually.
9. Grammar fix. "and' is more appropriate than "or" as the Statement and its title use both terms.
10. It's not just about Christianity. Although the cited reference (which curiously is from 1872!!!) talks about Darwinism as being anti-Christian, it certainly is not just about Christianity now, 136 years later.

Please take the time to review each edit individually. I took the time to make these edits one at a time to make it easier to discuss on a point by point basis. Please show some respect for that. If you have issues with any of them, then address them specifically. Again, suggestions for alternate wordings would be appreciated; wholesale reversions of multiple edits are not. Edits which are NOT "inaccurate & POV" and/or "controversial" should be reinstated as a show of Good Faith. Thanks!!! -- DannyMuse (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Critics counter that this is not so, stating that evolution..." is WP:WEASEL-wording -- that "evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science" is factual, supported by a ton of published research.
2. Given that no other date is given in this section, dating this comment appears to be unnecessary -- though this isn't a big issue
3. See above.
4. The original wording gives a better impression of the whole paragraph (not merely the isolated quote):"Under close examination, the text of both the leading paragraphs and the statement attested to appear to be very artfully phrased. The first paragraph tells readers that spokespersons for the PBS series Evolution have assured the public that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." But notice that "Darwinian" appears in brackets. That "all known scientific evidence supports evolution" is a different claim than "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." Exactly who is equating Darwinian evolution and evolution? In the same vein, the signatories to the second declaration are described as dissenting from "Darwinism" - but do they reject evolution as well? NCSE decided to go to the source to ask the questions. "
5. The juxtaposition of this quote and the word "nevertheless" implies that the quote in some way undercuts Evans' criticism, whereas the paragraph they are taken from concludes: "But arguments within the scientific community about how evolution occurs should not be confused with arguments - conspicuously absent from the scientific community - about whether evolution occurred."
6. "so as to be possibly confusing and/or misleading to the general public" waters down the intent that Evans ascribes to the phrasing.
7. See 5.
8. The petition makes neither explicit nor implicit distinction between 'macroevolution' and 'evolution' generally -- both include (but are not limited to) mutation and natural selection, both are 'Darwinian theory' and have been mislabelled 'Darwinism'. I believe that there is a clear causal relationship making "by" a better characterisation than "while". Science does not claim that the support is unaminous -- just so close as makes no difference -- whereas the DI crowd are trying to misrepresent this few hundred (mostly non-biologists and many non-scientists) as a substantial "dissent".
9. Both are actually correct, though both are ambiguous.
10. It is "just about Christianity" (or a very close approximation to this), and specifically a 19th century Christian doctrine called natural theology. The overwhelming majority of ID supporters are Christians, with a small smattering of Jews. The ID movement's sole agnostic member, is on record as refusing to avow ID (although agreeing with ID's anti-evolutionism).

None of these edits are "NOT 'inaccurate & POV'" (except for ones that are merely minor modifications), so I do not support any reinstatement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein is one of today's more prominent, perhaps the most prominent, ID pushers, and a Jew. So it misses the mark to state in an unqualified manner that "Intelligent design proponents... present Darwinism as being incompatible with Christianity." It should be "Most intelligent design proponents..." or "Almost all", or some other language. - Merzbow (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Stein has not disavowed "Darwinism as being incompatible with Christianity", and would most probably agree with the statement (although probably being more interested in a purported incompatibility with Judaism). Unless you can come up with a WP:RS counterexample stating that a prominent ID advocate believes that 'Darwinism is compatible with Christianity", the original would appear to be accurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that he would also agree Darwinism is incompatible with Islam, or any number of religions, but I can't find a statement from him on the subject. Surely as a Jew he would be more concerned about Darwinism's incompatibility with Judaism, but that sentence in the article is asking the reader to assume otherwise. There is also the recent phenomenon of Muslim intellectuals showing interest in ID as well. So that statement, while perhaps not technically false, is highly misleading. - Merzbow (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. What is the reason for limiting it to Christianity? On the other hand, the Vatican has officially endorsed evolution. But that's a whole other can of worms, no? -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of the IDM is focused upon Christianity -- Judaism is only a tiny proportion of the movement, so we should not give it WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I concede your generalization about Judaism, but ask you to address my comment about the Vatican. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is not Christian? I wouldn't think you would intend that. But this brings out the problem with generalizations. They tend by nature to be inaccurate because of the usual exceptions. This is why I made the edit above #10 with the comment "It's not just about Christianity" and suggested replacing the current:

Darwinism can be equated with atheism and presented as being incompatible with Christianity.

With:

Darwinism can be equated with atheism and presented as being incompatible with belief in a divine being as creator.

Even that's problematic as my point about the Catholic Church shows. I acknowledge that proponents of the ID are predominantly professed-Christians. But it doesn't follow that they are only Christians or that all Christians agree with ID. if you can suggest a more accurate way to make that distinction, I'm all for it. Let's please try to work towards agreement. - DannyMuse (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is stated as something that "Intelligent design proponents ... claim" not as something that "the Catholic Church claims". The Catholic church is not (institutionally) an ID proponent, so its opinion is irrelevant to what "Intelligent design proponents ... claim". As it stands, it does not state that this is something that "only Christians" or "all Christians" believe -- only that it is something that "Intelligent design proponents ... claim". The alternative wording seems to merely obscure the claim -- it adds neither accuracy nor intelligibility to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmm, I see your point, but please take a look again at the sentence in question in the article. It is a synthesis of several points in one statement. That is a huge part of the problem here. Also consider the sources. The first one is a missing reference and the second one is to an essay written by a certain Matthew Ropp. Not to diss poor Mr. Ropp unfairly, but who the heck is Matthew Ropp? And why is his opinion relevant? This cited source is to a college paper Ropp wrote in 1997 when he was at Fuller Theological Seminary expressing his research on "Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism", subtitled "A Case Study of American Anti-Darwinism in the Late 1800's". While Mr. Ropp's paper includes the phrase "intelligent design" twice, it is addressing it relative to Darwin's view of it (and/or Hodge's view of Darwin's view) in the 1880s and not the current ID movement. Therefore it hardly supports the synthesis that:

Intelligent design proponents ... claim that ... Darwinism ... [is] ... incompatible with Christianity.

A statement, by the way, with which I happen to agree. My current objections are twofold. One, the sources do not support it, the first doesn't even exist and the second is of questionable reliability and currency. Two, I believe it should not be limited to Christianity. But we've discussed that and don't agree, so no need to retrace that ground. Could you please use your experience and expertise in this area to look for a relevant, reliable and current source to support these statements? Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is too lengthy (and the conjunction of the two statements in it is ungrammatical) & should therefore simply be split into two independent sentences. This is however not the issue you were edit-warring over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Our first agreement. Wow, this is an event. Break out the bubbly!!! But first, let's be straight on one thing. I was not edit warring. I was editing and you and two other editors reverted my edits. If you construe that as edit warring, then you must have been too. One cannot fight alone, can one. Why don't we just give it a rest, we were beginning to get along so nicely. As for the issue #10, I addressed that in my previous post and have moved on. We have sort of made some slight progress with a tiny little agreement regarding one sentence. Now there is still the matter of the two sources cited in this sentence. Could you please address that? Thanks. -- DannyMuse (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Such circumstances (three versus one) is evidence of a consensus (at least a tentative one) and edit-warring against that consensus. Separated, each statement would appear to be supported by its citation (though clearer characterisation to indicate that it is Scott's book & Wells' comments that are being referenced might be useful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, since you've suggested separating the sentence, would you mind showing what that would look like? Then we could see if we could come to a consensus, tentative or otherwise. Next, will you please agree to fix the citations (once the page is unprotected of course). I'm not sure how you can say the first statement is supported by its citation when there isn't one! The footnote reads, "Cite error: Invalid (ref) tag; no text was provided for refs named Scott". Regarding the second citation, please allow me to reiterate for clarity, it is to an college essay written by a Matthew Ropp in 1997 when he was at Fuller Theological Seminary. It is his research on "Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism", subtitled "A Case Study of American Anti-Darwinism in the Late 1800's". While Mr. Ropp's paper includes the phrase "intelligent design" twice, it only addresses it relative to Darwin's view of it (and/or Hodge's view of Darwin's view) in the 1880s and not the current ID movement. Therefore it does not supports the statement that:

Intelligent design proponents ... claim that ... Darwinism ... [is] ... incompatible with Christianity.

As you pointed out before, the phrase "intelligent design" can have different meanings depending on the context. This citation to Mr. Ropp's paper does not support the above statement. And, as you have also pointed out to me on numerous occasions, does not meet [[WP:RS] standards]. Now, if you can find a source for "Scott's book & Wells' comments", then that is what should be in there and I would happily agree to it. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Will go along with that. The source is interesting in that it has Jonathan Wells supporting Hodge's conclusion that Darwinism = Atheism and is incompatible with Christianity, but it cites Wells from 1988 so really it predates ID even though it's discussing God as an intelligent designer. A better source which was removed was a page from the Sandwalk blog, which quotes Eldredge, Niles; Eugenie C. Scott (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and a search on Amazon confirms that the quote comes from p. 127 –

common to all ID proponents is the rejection of "Darwinism." In ID literature, "Darwinism" becomes an epithet, though it is not always clear in any given passage exactly what is meant by "Darwinism." In evolutionary biology, "Darwinism" usually refers to the ideas held by Darwin in the nineteenth century. Usually the term is not used for modern evolutionary theory, which, because it goes well beyond Darwin to include subsequent discoveries and understandings, is more frequently referred to as "neo-Darwinism," or just "evolutionary theory." Evolutionary biologists hardly ever use "Darwinism" as a synonym for evolution, though it occasionally is used this way by historians and philosophers of science. In ID literature, however, "Darwinism" can mean Darwin's ideas, natural selection, neo-Darwinism, post-neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, evolution itself, or materialist ideology inspired by "Godless evolution." The public, on the other hand, is unlikely to make these distinctions, instead equating "Darwinism" with evolution (common descent). For decades, Creation Science proponents have cited the controversies among scientist over how evolution occured—including the specific role of natural selection—in their attempts to persuade the public that evolution itself—the thesis of common ancestry—was not accepted by scientists, or at least was in dispute.

dave souza, talk 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, that's an excellent reference. I would like to see how you could incorporate some of those balancing statements into the article. Two thoughts:

1. Eugenie C. Scott makes the observation that "Darwinism" occasionally is used by by scientists (specifically, but not exclusively, historians and philosophers of science), but in a very particular way.
2. The public perception of this issue differs significantly from that of scientists. As you observed, this is an important distinction to make.

I look forward to seeing what you do! -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we not refer to Eugenie Scott as anyone who has notability in this area. With respect to Darwinism, I'm not sure why it's taken so long for this point to be understood. Darwinism is used pejoratively by Creationists to confuse the public. Isn't this what we've been saying all along? So few scientists use Darwinism to refer to Modern evolutionary synthesis, save for Dawkins (who seems to be renouncing his use of it, Dave souza had the reference somewhere a few months ago), that the real meaning of the word has become a code word. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OM, three things:

1. Could you please enlighten me, why not "refer to Eugenie Scott as anyone who has notability in this area"?
2. I, for one, never missed the point that the term "Darwinism" is used in a confusing way by some. My concerns, however, are essentially the same as those raised by Looie496 above. While it is no doubt true that "Darwinism" is used in a pejorative way by some, it is also used in a purely descriptive way by some scientists and philosophers, as Eugenie Scott observed in the reference Dave Souza excerpted above.
3. This is the second time you've said that Dawkins seems to be renouncing his use of the term "Darwinism". Again I ask, could you (or Dave) direct me to that source? I'd greatly appreciate it as I've looked and haven't been able to find it. .

Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, since you've suggested separating the sentence, would you mind showing what that would look like?

What I am suggesting is something like:

Intelligent design proponents use the term in all these ways, including the idea that it is a materialist ideology.[12] They claim that Darwinism can be equated with atheism[citation needed] and is incompatible with Christianity.[13]

I see no reason why the Ropp paper cannot be used as a citation here. It is merely reporting what Wells said, and Wells is on record saying something very similar in 2001 here. If you wish, you can check out Wells, Jonathan 1988 Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism, pp 215-223 to confirm that its not misrepresented. As to the Darwinism=Atheism claim, it's trivially easy to back it up (e.g. here). The "as it proposes natural processes as an explanation for evolution" probably should go, unless it can be related to the other statements without WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, now we're really making some progress. Your re-wording is much better. I agree, the "as it proposes natural processes as an explanation for evolution" should probably go. And of course citation [12] is missing. Thank you for your hard work. Regarding the Wells quote, I think it is always better to have a more direct citation, especially closer to the source. (I'll have to see if I can track down a copy of Wells' Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism). Not to beat a dead horse, but who is Ropp? Why not just cite Wells himself? It's neater and cleaner and right there. That being said, there are some issues with it that I'm still not entirely comfortable with. I'll try and make them as clear as possible.

BTW, I really enjoyed reading the Jonathan Wells Lecture Report from Western Michigan University. Thanks for the reference. There are two relevant statements I found:

• Q: In what sense does Darwinian Evolution constitute an intentional, direct and malicious attack on Christianity?
• A: Let's leave "malicious" aside for someone else to deal with. The direct and intentional attack comes at the level of the strong commitment to naturalism -- in many cases, not just methodological but also metaphysical.

• Q: Is it possible to have a form of theistic evolution that is consistent with Christianity?
• A: In a minimal sense, sure -- if "evolution" is defined as mere descent with modification at _some_ level. But for the sweeping claims of macroevolution, no, I think it is not compatible with an orthodox understanding of Christianity

I still have some minor hesitations about it. Why? In the report, Wells does explicitly say, "I think it is not compatible with an orthodox understanding of Christianity". Yet there are some problems.

First, in both of Wells' answers, it is the interviewer/questioner that used the word Christianity which qualifies the answer. I still maintain that this leaves open the larger conflict of Darwinism with belief in a divine creator regardless of religious affiliation, not just Christianity. In other words, the person asking the question framed it as "Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity" and Wells responded to that prompt. Wells himself does not explicitly limit the conflict with Christianity, but merely agrees with it. (There is a similar problem with his assessment of Hodge's opinion as referenced in the Ropp paper, never-mind the charitable ignoring of the fact that Hodge predates the ID movement by over 100 years, and technically so does the 1988 cite from Wells.)

Also, he does not use the term "Darwinism" in his answer; but, rather, the it to which he refers is "macroevolution". Currently, this article does not use the term "macroevolution" anywhere. Perhaps the association of the terms needs to be made somewhere in the body of the article.

Finally, although Jonathan Wells is certainly a high-profile player in the ID movement, isn't it giving him too much credit to go from his comments given in response to a Q&A at a public lecture to "Intelligent design proponents ... claim that Darwinism ... is incompatible with Christianity." That reads a bit like newspaper headlines sensationalism. Also, it implies that he is THE Official Spokesman for the ID movement. That just seems to be overstating it a bit. It's not like he made an official policy or decree. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly quote him as an example of what some ID proponents believe? Just some things to consider. Again, thanks for your hard work, I appreciate it! -- DannyMuse (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Citation 12 is easily recoverable from the article history (I attempted to do so myself, until I remembered that it was protected).
2. "I still maintain that this leaves open the larger conflict of Darwinism with belief in a divine creator regardless of religious affiliation, not just Christianity." What you "maintain" is WP:OR. We go on what the sources say. And when those sources speak directly about "Christianity", we should not use vaguer terms, per WP:WEASEL.
3. This piece was merely given as confirmation of Wells' earlier opinion. As has already been established, they use 'Darwinism' loosely an interchangably with a large number of related concepts, including macroevolution. Here's another (even closer) one: "He faithfully represented the mainstream Christian theological tradition when he affirmed the centrality of design, and he accurately represented "Mr. Darwin's theory" when he pointed to its exclusion of design. The two are utterly incompatible with each other. Modern scholars who want to preserve a place for Christianity in the reigning Darwinian paradigm sometimes claim that the two ARE compatible, but they must be talking about something other than Charles Darwin's theory, or something other than the Christian theological tradition."[1] I dare say I could find more, but is there really any reason to? We have Wells saying virtually the same thing on three separate occasions, across over a decade. I think we can conclude that this is solidly his opinion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So then we should say it's Wells' opinion, to generalize from that to "(all) ID proponents make these claims" is an inaccurate jump, unless you also have a source that claims, well, "(all) ID proponents" actually do make these claims. - Merzbow (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Hrafn's comments:

1. Good, I didn't know that.
2. Yes, but I didn't think I had to source my own observations and opinion in a discussion on a talk page! tfpilc
3. Excellent, now we have multiple source for Well's opinion, and they're more direct. Let's use 'em!!! Still, there's the question of his role as "spokesperson" for the ID movement. I like the way Merzbow addressed the problem. - DannyMuse (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re: #2 -- when it is a substitution that he has attempted to make in the article itself, it is not a mere "observation", and it is not unreasonable to demand a RS for it.
• Re: Wells -- he is a prominent ID spokesman who has made this comment on numerous occasions, and has been widely quoted for doing so, without being contradicted by the rest of the IDM, so I think it is reasonable to accept that he is speaking on behalf of the movement.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding Wells, I still don't find that a reasonable leap to make, especially given the existence of prominent non-Christian IDers. It's really not for us as Wikipedia editors to generalize from the words of a single member of a movement to all members; we need a secondary source for that. That is why qualifiers exist - "some/most/many", "example of", "according to", etc. - Merzbow (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• By most orthodox definitions of "Christianity", Wells is himself one of those "prominent non-Christian IDers" (as the Unification Church is generally not accepted as anywhere close to orthodoxly Christian). This is the uncontradicted opinion of a leading spokesman -- articulating a point that the majority of IDers appear to agree with, using terminology directly applicable to that majority's beliefs. It would quite simply be WP:UNDUE weight to WP:WEASEL-word it any other way. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, If I'd made that edit you'd have immediately, and correctly, labelled it WP:OR. Whether "it is reasonable to accept that he is speaking on behalf of the movement." or not is irrelevant. Let's please be consistent in our interpretation and application of Wikipolicies. Thanks, -- DannyMuse (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that I was making an argument for why we should put something that is reliably sourced to a prominent ID spokesman into the article. I was not proposing that the article itself should state anything that I wrote in that comment. All assessments of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc require judgement calls that would be WP:OR if stated explicitly in the article. I have also found another ID advocate cited as saying the same thing: R. Albert Mohler, Jr. in The Origins of Life: An Evangelical Baptist View, secondary source: Evolution & Christianity ‘incompatible,’ Mohler says in NPR forum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally I can put my hands upon a WP:RS for the UC vs Christianity claim, if you wish to challenge it. And I could most probably put my hands upon a source demonstrating that "Christianity" is the applicable religion for their target audience. So this was not WP:OR. However WP:AGF is generally taken to mean that one can make uncontroversial factual claims in support of an argument (as opposed to a suggested edit) on talk without having to cite every one of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

article structure

Having been silent for a week, I'd like to state my opinion again, and then I'll probably be silent for another week. I think the section called "Statement" is poorly done. For purely structural reasons, that section, if it exists, ought to contain only exposition, not criticism. Also I think that the criticism is poorly organized in a way that reduces its impact. The real problem with the statement is that it is, in wiki-lingo, weasel-worded. The literal meaning of the sentences is different from their political message. (Even so, I doubt that more than a couple of the people who signed it failed to realize that they were endorsing the political message rather than the literal meaning). The business about "Darwinism" is at best a quibble, and it is a structural flaw to put a quibble before an important objection. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I whole heartedly agree. But I'm having a hard enough time getting consensus on changes to a single sentence. If you can get this group to discuss and agree to such significant--and badly needed--structural changes I will publicly bow to your superior negotiating skills! Please, show me the way. -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

The statement in the lead that "the list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution" is sourced by http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf which appers to not make that claim about this list. While I believe the claim is true, I have run into someone that does not. So first, the claim must be sourced because it is contoversial and is being questioned and second, the source provided does not in fact support the claim. Can someone who knows this material better than me find a source that actually supports the claim not that they are trying to do this but that they are using this list to do so. Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Would citation to several usages of it in the DI's official 'evolution news and views' blog be sufficient? Or do we need to have a secondary source for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a believer in creating unnecessary work, so I would recommend adding the best sources you know of and don't worry about finding "better" sources until someone finds fault with the provided sources. You may also wish to alter the sentence to better reflect whatever sources you provide. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier at #New lead... but fell by the wayside and needs to be properly updated. In addition to the sources given there, here are a few more. Evolution Vs. Creationism by Eugenie Carol Scott, Niles Eldredge, pp. 214-215 describes Meyer using it in 2002 to promote "teach the controversy" to the Ohio Board of Education for their state standards. At the Kansas Evolution Hearings in 2005,[2] Stephen C. Meyer of the CSC testified that "400 scientists at least have signed a statement of dissent from the idea that natural selection is sufficient to produce the complexity of life. Of the 400 scientists who signed yesterday as members of the Russian National Academy of Embryologists, there is significant scientific dissent from Darwinism. The proposition before this Kansas State Board is whether or not students should be permitted to know about that, and I think that is-- the answer to that should be an obvious yes." A February 2007 blog by TIME senior writer Michael D. Lemonick comments on a DI press release about the list reaching 700. A Cybercast News Service article New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, January 09, 2008, includes it in the rebuttal by Rob Crowther, director of communications for the Discovery Institute, responding to a Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) study. . . dave souza, talk 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of signatories

I have merged the list of (notable) signatories, previously a separate article, in the article. If there is any question about that, I propose to debate it here. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 18:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: the list of signatories dominates and thus unbalances the article. I would have preferred the original (but now deleted) category for signatories, but a stand-alone list makes more sense than having it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it occupies a bit of space, but I feel that a list of notable signatories is an obviously relevant information to the petition -and as such to the article. I was wondering if putting it in a collapsable box could help. --Cyclopia^talk 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The list can be shortened to contain only signatories that are really notable. For example, don't bother listing people associated with 'Discovery Institute', as it will be rather unsurprising to find them listed. The list can include bona fide professors of biochemistry who should really have known better than give their name to such a propaganda stunt. Of course, their status as signatory will need to be verified beyond reasonable doubt, as it would amount to libel to list somebody by mistake. The list will become very short if we do that, boiling down to Giuseppe Sermonti, Richard Sternberg and perhaps James Tour. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is unsurprising maybe to find them but I see no reason not to include them explicitly. As for including only people who "should really have known better", seems a bit cherrypicking to out them, and I don't feel comfortable with that. --Cyclopia^talk 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very strongly opposed to the inclusion of that list for reasons delineated on my original edit summary. It was highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and violated multiple policies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

May you elaborate why? --Cyclopia^talk 16:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it repeats the same errors of logic and fallacies caused by the original publication. These violate WP for several reasons: 1) WP:NPOV - it presents a false impression of significant scientific disagreement about whether evolution occurs - this is not, in fact, the case.

WP:DUE by publishing the list we give undue credence to an opinion which is beyond minority in its' diminutiveness within the scientific community.

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a list of self-reported "scientists" who believe in creationism, santa claus, the tooth fairy or any other fantasies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY as there is no need to keep a copy of a public domain document here in toto.

WP:RS as the criticism in the article currently states the Discovery Institute is a questionable source. Need I go on? Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know with certainty what Simonm223 might elaborate, but I could list a few violating policies. WP:RS -- particularly for the signatory descriptions, but possibly for some of the signatories' names (I have heard stories that it's considerably easier to get on the list than off it again). It's tabulator, the Discovery Institute is a notoriously unreliable and extremist source. WP:GEVAL, would also be an issue (as the listing gives the pretence that there is more than a tiny minority opposing evolution), as would WP:UNDUE (to PhDs in subjects that would give them no expertise whatsoever to evaluate evolution), WP:SELFPUB (blatantly "self serving"). My first preference is that this information be presented as a category, I am largely indifferent between it being presented as a stand-alone list or not presented at all (deleted), having it here comes a distant last. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your concerns because I now understand better what are the possible problems. I want to make it clear that, if I have any bias, this is strongly against the DI and I have no intention whatsoever of making them look more reliable than they are. Now, I want to addres Simonm223 and Hrafn concerns:

• NPOV, DUE: I agree that the list, alone, could possibly give a somehow false impression. I didn't think about that. I guess however the overall article context makes it clear that they represent an extremly minoritarian fringe view. I feel that the comment of Hrafn on the fact that most of these people have no expertise whatsoever in biology (which is already in the article) can be restated in the introduction to the list and maybe it can be noted in a section for each entry in the list. There are several sources online discussing exactly this kind of thing.
• NOTDIRECTORY, NOTREPOSITORY: Well, this is the talk page of an article which covers exactly a "list of self-reported 'scientists' who believe in creationism" (or at least do not believe in evolution). The article is about a petition, I think it is a fundamental information to report which notable subjects have signed up this petition in the article about the petition. And we're not copying it in toto, I think we should just report the notable ones -which is what the list is.
• RS: DI is for sure not a RS in general, but here we're using it as a primary source not to say something on the DI or evolution or whatever, but we simply report what they say. I mean, what is more reliable information on the subject "signatories that currently appear on DI petition" than the DI petition itself? Hrafn concern that the DI makes it hard to "opt out" the list is to be taken into account and it should be clearly stated that someone could not be endorsing anymore the list.

• WRONG: it clearly falls under WP:V#Questionable sources. It thus is subject to WP:SELFPUB which it fails, as (i) it "involve[s] claims about third parties" (and in fact is known to be unreliable for signatory details) and (ii) is "unduly self-serving". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree on not using it for signatories details. But if X is in that list, it is not questionable to say "The DI reports X as being on its own list", isn't it? --Cyclopia^talk 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is, as I've pointed out twice, "unduly self-serving", so impermissible. The entire petition is a promotional, and thus 'questionable', source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is on the promotional source itself. One thing is to say "Coca Cola is the best drink in the world (link to advertisement)", another is to say "Coca Cola advertisement says that it is the best drink in the world (link to advertsement)". The first is not acceptable, the second is. --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But generally, we do not quote advertising copy at such length, even in an article about advertising. For instance it is the WP:CONSENSUS at WP:RSN that publishers' advertising blurbs, containing potted quotes, cannot be taken at face value in articles. It is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the DI's claim that all these 'learned' individuals (whose status is often misrepresented, and even more frequently is in an irrelevant area) don't believe evolution, so it can't be true. It is one thing for wikipedia to comment on (from RSes) an appeal to false authority, it is quite another, to present that appeal at great length. This article should be about what legitimate experts say about the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And I would further point out that no we don't include WP:PEACOCKery like "the best drink in the world" without a third party source demonstrating that the claim in question is noteworthy. The consensus of the third party sources in this case seems to be that the signatories aren't particularly noteworthy for their relevant scientific expertise, but are generally religiously motivated in signing. As such, listing them, or their purported affiliations, is not warranted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems I still can't make myself clear. I am not gonna saying that whatever the DI claim about those people is true. What is true (and verifiable) is that the DI lists several people as having signed that stuff. Not that they did: but that the DI lists them as having did. The fact that they actually did or not can be debated and I'm all for finding sources that dispute that: but fact is, the DI claims that and lists their names on that petition. I don't understand the UNDUE claim: we're debating about the very substance of the article itself -the article is about the petition, and the very existence of the petition comes from such claim. --Cyclopia^talk 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(i) That "the DI claims that and lists their names on that petition" is explicitly not sufficient, given that this material is covered by WP:SELFPUB. (ii) The inclusion of this lengthy list, based upon a 'questionable' source, gives WP:UNDUE weight to that source, compared to the weight given to the reliable sources to which that policy explicitly states we should give weight. (iii) Its inclusion also violates WP:FRINGE, in that it gives a false impression of the "current level of [this viewpoint's] acceptance among the relevant academic community." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked on WP:RS/N on the petition as a source. --Cyclopia^talk 10:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope I made myself more clear and I would like to hear more opinions on the matter. I feel that it makes little sense to talk of a petition without citing the notable subjects who have signed it, avoiding of course to make the signatories appear more reliable than they are. --Cyclopia^talk 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you mention that X signed a petition. You would do that because you think X is notable in some way, or because you think it is important to note it on Wikipedia. However, that would violate WP:OR – please find a secondary source that verifies it is significant that X has signed. Also, what does "signed" mean? How is that verified? Was X fully informed about the document (the context in which it would be used)? How do we know that X has not changed their mind? These questions cannot be resolved in any consistent and verifiable manner, and that is why articles on Wikipedia do not have lists of people who believe such-and-such. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To declare that "X is included in the list of signatories of a petition" is not OR nor you need a secondary source for that: the petition itself is the only source you need. The petition is notable, since there is a well sourced article on it. We don't need that all sources establish some kind of notability. As for your questions about X, that's none of our business. We're not here of course to read the mind of X. But if X is included in the petition, we can for sure declare it as such. It is not a "list of people who believe such-and-such", it is a "list of notable people that are featured as signatories of a notable document", within the article of the notable document. --Cyclopia^talk 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we did it so... is not a valid explanation for violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Sorry but I don't think your argument resolved those points.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what is the "not valid explanation" and why it is a violation. --Cyclopia^talk 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With more specific reference to WP:NOTREPOSITORY by listing signatories for this petition we are creating a repository for it. As a petition is the signatures on it a reproduction of the signatories for any petition are thus inappropriate under this policy. If we have to have an article on the petition (I say nay) than it should be an article about the impact of the petition, not a reproduction of it.

With regards to WP:NOTDIRECTORY a list of signatories to a petition, notwithstanding the fact that it violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY as above creates a directory of individuals who believe X. This is essentially a list of individuals sorted by factor X. This is precisely what WP:NOTDIRECTORY says it should not be. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have not explained myself correctly. I am not saying that we should xerox the petition in the article, at all. This would violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I am saying that since we have an article on this petition, and since notable subjects are alleged by the DI to have signed it, their names should be mentioned. Which is a completely different thing than copying the document. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I suspect you are misreading the guideline. We have tons of lists of "individuals sorted by factor X" and this is not problematic at all. I think you refer to Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations but it is completely encyclopedic, in an article about a notable petition, to list some notable signatories of it -it is not a trivial intersection. --Cyclopia^talk 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)

I was originally attracted to this article by concerns about including quotations. Read the above quote from WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

Which is what I was opposing. Violations of wikipedia policy being wide-spread are not justifications for further violations.

(outdent)Simonm223, I think there is something wrong in your interpretation of the policy. Being a notable signatory of a notable petition is not a "non-encyclopedic cross categorization". I am also not going to include a list of quotations. If there were quotation in the original list merged, fine, one could have removed them without removing the whole list. The point is very simple: Notable people have signed that petition, and as such it is clearly informative to have their names included in the article. It doesn't necessarily need to be a strict list; it can also be a paragraph like "The petition has been alleged by the DI to have been signed by several people related to the DI, like ...". But there is no reason not to include such names. --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we will not come to agreement on this, I think that it is a "non-encyclopedic cross categorization". This is partly because I think the other RS and POV problems exacerbate the situation and partly because I tend to dislike cross categorizations in general and think WP:NOT should be applied rigorously. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree with you on the rigour, what I disagree on its applicability here. We should be rigorous on crime, but not putting innocent people in jail :) - I am going to ask for some further opinion to editors on some relevant Wikiproject -any suggestion? --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Any physical sciences wikiprojects that would touch on evolution, wikiproject rational skepticism, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at this, I come to the conclusion that it is problematic for Wikipedia to carry an article under this title. By doing so, we are giving a publicity to an item which has the one and only purpose of generating publicity. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a misleading title, as the "petition" text doesn't present any sort of argument or rationale, let alone any scientific points. It simply expresses "skepticism towards Darwinian theory" (note the redlink; "Darwinian theory" appears to be an "euphemism" for Darwinism, a term apparently 'used by US creationists as a pejorative'). After this rather modest content, it becomes all about its celebrated list of signatories, or more precisely, the number of signatures in it. Seeing that we already have the unlikely-titled article Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns, discussion of the ASDFD for better or worse would very much be at home there. --dab (𒁳) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

[For the avoidance of doubt, this discussion is of the proposed merger of this article with Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns#Petition_campaigns, not of the recent but not-discussed-in-advance merger of List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC) ]

I strongly support the proposed merge. ~There is no reason for this petition to have it's own page. Simonm223 (talk)

• Oppose. It is a notable petition, no matter how I disagree with it (and trust me, as a researcher who does biology thanks to having read Richard Dawkins books when a teenager, I really disagree with ID nonsense). There are almost 50 references in this article, it seems more than enough to warrant its own article. I don't think a merge is a good idea therefore. The title of the petition is misleading for sure, but it was its title, and the article title is therefore appropriate. What is important is that the article clearly explains what this petition is and covers it appropriately. That is why I want a listing of the notable subjects who are claimed by the DI to have signed it. --Cyclopia^talk 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• it was just a suggestion, an invitation to examine the notability status of both this article and the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns one. Truth be told, I think that the title of the latter rises more red flags than this one. As for "notability", the notability of this entire thing is strictly confined to the "Intelligent Design" debate within US popular media, and probably more to the point, the internets, and as such a topic that is bound to benefit from extreme WP:BIAS. Are we to fill our Category:Discovery Institute campaigns(sic!) with random publicity stunts such as this one just because they are sure to generate an ephemereal buzz in the US blogosphere? The answer is probably yes, see precedents, but I am not too comfortable with that. --dab (𒁳) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The point is that this petition is notable. It is notable enough to have its own article, much more than a lot of other perfectly good article. The fact that its notability is restricted to the ID debate is irrelevant: most topics are notable within a restricted circle (how many people know about p-adic numbers or volapuk?) Merge is a meaningful idea, but I feel this subject is notable enough to stand on its own merits. The fact that it is a "random publicity stunt" is irrelevant, what is important is that it has been a notable publicity stunt. Sad as I can personally find this kind of stunts, if we want to be a serious encyclopedia, we have to cover it -there is no guideline I am aware of against this article as it is. --Cyclopia^talk 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger: this article clearly demonstrates that it meets WP:GNG, and contains information that would overbalance Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns (where a short WP:SUMMARY of this article resides). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merger -- meets notability guidelines, well referenced, and I agree with Hrafn, it would overbalance the campaigns article. Auntie E. 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Salthe Quote Mine

Hello- I have felt it necessary to change the section on Dr. Salthe, because it was an obviously blatant quote mine. From the news source: Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."

By stating just the first quote, as was originally done on this page, it makes it seem as though Salthe was completely against the actual idea of the petition, and had signed in irritation of being hassled by emails/communication about it At least, that was my first impression. However, the second part of the quote makes it clear that he signed it in irritation of evolutionary biologists; thus, he supports his signature. This makes a fairly big difference. If Dr. Salthe did not wish to be on the list, the DI would be incredibly dishonest by keeping him on it. However, if he still sticks by his signature(and he has not said he doesn't), then there is nothing wrong with it being kept on there.

Yeah, creationists are scum, but watch the quotes everybody. Cheers. 72.94.39.117 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You were selectively citing from the source and drawing your own, unwarranted, conclusion unsupported by the source. To assist, I've included all of his quotes and the context given by the source. . . dave souza, talk 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. Good work. 72.94.39.117 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the notable signators list?

Please be opened minded if notable scientists have signed. I bet there are many more dissenting scientists in the closet who fear reprisal on promotions and grants, etc. There are many religious people in this world.

Isn't there a man at NIH who was involved in the human genome, and he has often been presented as a Christian? I don't think he is a signator. Not all Christians believe in Creation, but some do.Bridgettttttte (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The petition itself is so ambiguous as to be meaningless, and says nothing about religion, Christians or Creation. That the ID scammers used it to promote their religious views disguised as science says more about ID than it does about the signatories. The list was disputed as dubious biographical info, which could be taken as a slur on living people. . . dave souza, talk 06:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Darwinism" vs. actual quote "Darwinian theory"

Is anyone in favor of preserving this misquote "Darwinism" vs. the real quote "Darwinian Theory"? Where did the quote coming from?

PER THE ARTICLE: "The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term "intelligent design proponents" use to refer to evolution.[1][2]"

THE ACTUAL STATEMENT QUOTE IS: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Mikearion (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims

A portion of the section Affiliations and Credentials must be deleted as it contains an unverified claim. The statement "Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists" has no accompanying citation. Snoopydaniels (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You could alternatively have labelled it up with {{fact|date=August 2010}} to draw attention to this. As it happens, I believe that the statement can be supported since I thought that the list is known to contain both retired scientists and non-scientists. Whether "Many of those ..." is justified is up for grabs, however. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is being disputed in 'Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document' ?

Everything is that section is 100% sourced and confirmed. The source of the quote from Discovery Institute is from their website copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009. [3].

Cease reverting the section or prove the source is not accurate. You are engaging in edit warring and it's violation of wikipidia. Return the last edit I'm not leaving I will stand on principle we all know what you are doing is wrong. There are plenty of forums to vent your grips against that organization wikipedia is not the place to do that. Mikearion (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I need people to cease edit warring on that section. If you have a reason to change let talk about it here. Explain what's wrong and what needs to be changed and I'll change it. Stop removing valid information without justification. It's all sourced and accurate 100% unless you can prove otherwise. Mikearion (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to the nature of this article I'm leaving "copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009" in to eliminate frivolous disputes. It's not against wikipedia guidlines. The copyright is taken directly from the website and is a legal public announcement by Discovery Institute.Mikearion (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mikearion, you are being reverted by multiple editors. Re-inserting the content into the article despite their objections is considered edit warring. Please try to assume good faith - we all want this article to be accurate and reflect the best information available. I'll reiterate a couple points I made above. Inserting copyright information as you have, I believe, is against policy, and in either case it is irrelevant to the content. Terms like Darwinism should be linked and not substituted, as they are relevant to the content. The other information in the article which you say criticizes DI is pertinent to the topic, and per policy (including WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE), we must include it alongside their claims. If you have further questions regarding those policies, I would suggest asking at WP:FTN, where you will have a larger audience of experienced editors. Again, I agree with a few of your edits in theory, but they need to be cleaned up in the ways I've pointed out before being included. Jess_talk|_edits 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You said "Again, I agree with a few of your edits in theory, but they need to be cleaned up in the ways I've pointed out before being included." OK then what? Obviously completely deleting my previous edit is rude and isn't helpful. Fix it or LEAVE IT. Take the copyright information out since that's all you are disputing.

Also, I corrected a misquote of the document and you reverted it. Why? Nowhere in the document is the word "Darwinism" used. Nowhere! From what source is it being quoted? That is self research.

It's hard for me to believe you care about the accuracy of this article, you are simply edit warring me and you need to stop. Wikipedia is not majority rules it's truth and accuracy rules. The document DOES NOT say "Darwinism" anywhere. SHOW ME WHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT IT SAYS "DARWINISM". The article quotes it as saying "DARWINISM" BUT IT'S NOT IN THERE! It needed to be corrected. Why did you revert it to something YOU KNOW is FALSE and inaccurate? Please Read the document. It clearly says "Darwinian Theory". Nowhere is the word "Darwinism" ever used. Who came up with that quote?

You see that's the problem I have. Nobody here cares about wikipedia, honesty or accuracy. Go do something useful with you life and stop posting junk on wikipedia. I consider what you are doing vandalism. I post on topic information directly related to the article with sources listed and confirmed. Mikearion (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@JESS

The copyright notice is removed from the section per your objection. If you have any other objections to the accuracy of the section please in good faith write me here first and discuss. Do not edit war and delete that information again. Mikearion (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

btw, this article is actually a fallacy. Instead of an article about the document it is a diatribe against the Discovery Institute organization. The entire article is an apparent attempt to discredit the signatories of the document by running a tirade against the organization that first commissioned it. But the document is it's own entity and the people that signed it are mostly not members of the organization being ranted on. But you cannot refute a document by it's ownership. And why attempt to do so on a wikipedia "article"? Mikearion (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mikearion You're treating this article as a battleground, rather than working collaboratively to include the content you want. The copyright info is not the only thing I objected to, which I feel I was relatively clear about. The biggest issue is wording the section to give undue weight to the idea that the assertions of the DI are accurate. They are not, and should be presented as such. Additionally, after a quick re-skim of the article, lots of that information is already there. There's no need to repeat things multiple times. I second Guettarda's suggestion. Please hash the discussion out here first before reintroducing it. Lastly, please be aware that, per WP:3RR, if you reintroduce the content again, you may be blocked from editing. Please just discuss it here calmly and we'll see what can be done. Jess_talk|_edits 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus first

I removed the section - there's clearly no consensus for its inclusion. Hash out something we can all agree on here before re-inserting it. Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well, exactly what wording is giving undue weight to the idea of ID? Please be precise. I didn't make any commentary on ID just quoted the authors of the document. This article is about that document correct? Here is my proposed inclusion. Let me hear your objections and ideas to improve this article.

And as far as consensus I'm bumping heads with people that apparently have personal a dog in the fight and shouldn't be editing or writing here at all. The most basic information about this document I had to find elsewhere when it should have been here. That not good. The only reason I'm still here, if I come across an article that is clearly missing something I try to fix it for the next poor soul.

But I'm willing to discuss this at length. Tell me exactly the wording you object to and your suggestions.Mikearion (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose we insert it back into the article exactly as worded below but place it at the top since it is the most basic information about the document. All the rest of the stuff in the article appears to belong in other articles about the Discovery Institute or in an ID article. Mikearion (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document

(OK LET'S GO WORD BY WORD)

1.) The document is maintained, published and updated by the Discovery Institute.. (CAN EVERYONE AGREE THIS IS FACTUAL?)

2.) Although their website claims to require a Ph.D or M.D. degree to sign there appears to be exceptions on their list as of January 2010. Notably exception is Bernard d'Abrera who holds a Bachelor of Arts, with a double major in History & Philosophy of Science and History and diploma in Education (Melbourne T.C., 1972). (CAN EVERYONE AGREE THIS IS FACTUAL?)

3.) Quote from the Discovery Institute Maintained Website : (CAN WE ALL CONFIRM THIS IS TRUE?)

4.) "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:" (IS THIS A QUOTE FROM THE AUTHORS OF THE DOCUMENT PER THEIR PUBLISHED WEBSITE TO INVITE SIGNERS?)

5.)"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (IS THIS WHAT THE AUTHORS REQUIRE SIGNERS TO AGREE TO?)

Mikearion (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Already covered in lead (which mentions the DI three times) -- duplicative and therefore unnecessary.
2. FALSE not FACTUAL -- and d'Abrera is not the only exception. Tony Prato's PhD is in Agricultural Economics. Stephen C. Meyer's in Philosophy of Science. David Berlinski's in Philosophy. Tom McMullen's in the History and Philosophy of Science. Angus Menuge's in Philosophy of Psychology. Bruce L. Gordon's in the Philosophy of Physics. Anthony Reynolds's in the Philosophy of Science, etc, etc.
3. WP:QS used for a false (and therefore "unduly self-serving") claim -- therefore fails WP:SELFPUB.
4. FALSE not FACTUAL -- see (2)
5. Blatantly duplicative -- this already has a whole section devoted to it. So why repeat it here?

But then you've been told all this before Mikearion -- you simply WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, just to reiterate this point ad nauseum, even if everything you said was factual, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to include. There are weight concerns, structural ones, referential ones, WP:NPOV ones, and so forth. You're taking the wrong tact to including this content. Arguing whether or not it's factual is missing the point. Jess_talk|_edits 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you repeat yourself ad nauseum. I want your proposed edit you promised to discuss. And yes Steven Meyer and the rest ALL have a Ph.D. That means Doctor of Philosophy and if your Ph.D. is in Science it means you are a scientist of the highest caliber. So can we now quote them about their own bleeding document? And why did you delete my last talk? You say you want to discuss but you don't. Enough of this. The quote goes back stop the edit war, you didn't even know a Ph.D means Doctor of Philosophy you shouldn't edit this article at all. It's a higher degree than M.D. btw. Mikearion (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The section with authors quote is shortened to include just their quote and mention of the fact not all signers meet the Ph.D requirement. It's the MOST BASIC INFORMATION about that document and should be at the very top of the article. It's their document and they are the highest authority regarding document. No more edit warring there is nothing of mine in there to object to only the author's own word exactly quoted. The people opposing the quote didn't even know what a Ph.D is and shouldn't even be here on this article. Mikearion (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a PhD does not make you a "scientist of the highest calibre" - it doesn't make you a scientist at all. You can earn a Ph.D. in a whole host of fields, not just science. And no, it doesn't make you a "scientist of the highest calibre" - for a working scientist, having a PhD is pretty much an entry-level requirement. As for the rest - using primary sources is discouraged. We are supposed to rely on secondary and tertiary sources produced by independent third parties. That's especially true when you are dealing with a body like that DI, which has a history of making dubious claims. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with multiple comments above; tendentiously adding disputed material against consensus is no way to improve this article. WP:WEIGHT issues need to be resolved before consideration of adding this information. Yobol (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I said Ph.D in science but that's besides the point. Explain why the author of the document should not be quoted as the most basic information about this article? Are we Nazis that burn books too? Why censor the authors themselves? What justification? And primary source is a good source. However, if you can find some other entity or person repeating the quote I would not object to including such reference. Mikearion (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And regarding the "consensus" canard there are three people here two of which are likely the same person. Only one of us even knew what a Ph.D is being myself.Mikearion (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You talked about Meyer, who while he's a very nice person, doesn't have a PhD in science. You appeared to be conflating science and non-science PhDs. And then you made an erroneous statement about what a PhD in science entails. I would appear that you don't understand the underlying terminology, and understanding what a PhD actually is, and what it means to a working scientist is important if you want to contribute to this particular topic. Otherwise you'll simply be led astray by the DI's spin. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As to "consensus" - four different editors have reverted your change. So even if the IP isn't you, that's still the majority of active editors here. Even if it were just 2 for and 2 against, that's still not consensus. (Please read Wikipedia:Consensus). In the absence of consensus for change, things stay the way they were to begin with, before the change was proposed. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with coming to a consensus. However, I'm the only one willing to propose a solution and nobody is offering alternatives. Talk to me and propose a solution to including the most information about this document. Do not continue to vandalize and edit war. Edit do not destroy. Mikearion (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've admitted that the IP is you. So you're the only one arguing for inclusion. And you've clearly broken the three-revert rule. But, for starters - do you understand why Meyer is not a "science PhD"? Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to get a grip on something. It does not matter if Meyer is a homeless man that didn't finish high school. Appeal to authority is a fallacy if DI does it, if I do it or if you do it. The point is THEY are authors of this document. Doesn't make anything else true about the document. They have published some very basic things about the document the most basic of which is who is allowed to sign it. This is per them the author. There is no dispute this is valid information basic to the document's foundation. From my perspective you are attempting to censor basic information about this document, there is no other explanation. Solutions please.Mikearion (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, I have conformed to every single objection to the inclusion of this section stripping the entire section down to just the quote and a disclosure that in fact not all the signers are Ph.Ds. There is nothing left to object to unless your true objective is to censor the words of the document's authors. Fact. Mikearion (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Mikearion no, you haven't "conformed to every single objection", because the information you included which wasn't outright false, was objected to on the grounds that it is redundant. It's already covered in the article. The entire section is being objected to - and reintroducing it is going against consensus. I'm sorry this has been a frustrating process for you, but going about fixing it the way you are is not appropriate, and not going to spur any change. Jess_talk|_edits 01:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

block evasion

That information isn't redundant it appears nowhere in the article. Let's not kid ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC) @mikearion I 100% agree with you on the inclusion of that information. I've been reading the objections and I see no basis to exclude that information. However, before I revert I would like to hear some other comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) @mikearion btw, there should have been a consensus before deleting pertinent information. As far a I can tell the only objection at this point is it's redundant. Perhaps the statement itself but that fits in with the context of the quote. But if that's all that needs to be removed than let's do that....talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC) @mikearion Hello you there? Two in favor of the inclusion. How many objections? @Mann_jess I cannot find that DI quote in the article how is it redundant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Did everyone abandoned the discussion? Or did you all get blocked for edit waring over this fun discussion lol. ok I agree with mikearion in that the information belongs in the article but i don't think it should have it's own section. likely belongs under the "statement" header. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Gee, a new IP shows up agreeing with the editwarring and recently blocked editor. How completely unsuspicious. Yobol (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Well I have agree in part. The requirement quote I couldn't find in the article and the only objection is redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unproductive blind reverting

I added some well-sourced material to this article yesterday and I'm not at all pleased to see that someone has blindly reverted the lot with a specious claim of "massive POV changes". That is nonsense, as a review of my changes, which you can see here, will show:

1. I added a statement by William A. Dembski, a prominent and senior figure at the DI, to illustrate how they are promoting the list. I don't agree with his view but it's a good illustration of the DI's spin.
2. I took out a couple of POV terms - "claiming" (a word to avoid) and "similarly confusing and misleading" (according to who?).
3. I added a couple of comments by Robert T. Pennock, a notable critic of ID.
4. I added mention of the website that was part of the DI's publicity campaign when it launched the list.
5. I added a description of how the NCSE sought to verify the views of the signatories.
6. I also made a couple of minor and completely uncontentious copyedits to tidy up grammar, wikilinks etc.

All of this is verifiable and well-sourced (from published books) and it is all reported in a neutral way. There is nothing POV about it. Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Dembski's ludicrous self-serving claim is WP:Complete bollocks. And as he's neither a historian of science nor a sociologist of science, he's hardly a WP:RS in (purported) shifts in the scientific consensus.
2. Teach the Controversy was described as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard" in the Dover decision -- describing it as a mere "claim" would thus seem WP:SPADE.

As to the other changes, I don't think I've got a problem with them, at least at first glance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Extreme POV edits. I reverted them, thank you very much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation from you of what is "POV" about them. Commentary from the NCSE? Or a notable academic critic of ID who testified in the Kitzmiller case? Or simple copyedits tidying up grammar and wording? Hrafn doesn't seem to have a problem with any of that so I'm sure he'd be equally interested to know what your objection is. Prioryman (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, of course the claim is complete bollocks. You're also right that he's neither a historian of science nor a sociologist of science. That's not the point. He's a senior DI figure, he undoubtedly was and is involved in promoting and organising the list, and his view of what it represents is a canonical illustration of the DI's spin on it. He's very much a reliable source for what the DI thinks about the list. Note that I quoted him in his capacity as a DI fellow, rather than any academic capacity.
2. "Claim" is a loaded word; see WP:CLAIM. I don't think we're supposed to pass judgement. You're right that the Dover decision deprecated Teach the Controversy, but although we might sympathise with that view, NPOV forbids us from endorsing it in the article. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Dembski is at best a WP:QS on the topic, and thus the statement is excluded by WP:ABOUTSELF as "unduly self-serving". Also, I've seen no evidence that Dembski is involved in the organisational side of the DI -- and would consider him tempermentally & geographically (he lives on the opposite side of the US) ill-suited to the task.
2. WP:CLAIM: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question" -- except that we already have a source explicitly calling the credibility of TtC into question.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, I've simply side-stepped the issue by using wording from the cited source -- which states Meyers "cited five considerations" -- one of which being the Dissent -- thus avoiding having to offer any opinion as to the (lack of) credibility of the claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Why would Dembski be a questionable source? He is a very prominent ID advocate and a fellow of the DI. Surely his view is a good example of how such people regard the list? He's wrong, of course, in what he says, but that's not the issue - if you applied WP:ABOUTSELF that literally you probably couldn't represent any pro-ID viewpoint. Don't forget I'm not endorsing what he says, merely reporting it.
2. Yes, we have a source calling the credibility of TtC into question, but the way it was worded made it seem that this article was itself casting doubt. I see you've changed the wording though, so I'm happy with how it is now. Prioryman (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Because he's (i) a purveyor of what are widely considered to be pseudoscientific (and pseudomathematical) claims (ii) he has a history of misrepresentation and dishonesty & (iii) (as stated above) he is not a legitimate expert on (purported) shifts in the scientific consensus. Any one of which would be sufficient. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient if I was quoting Dembski as a source of fact. What I was aiming to do was to illustrate his opinion about what the list represents. The aim of the list is, as I'm sure you're aware, to falsely present evolution as being "in crisis". The list wasn't just a one-off exercise - the DI has continued to promote it and get new signatures. Dembski's viewpoint is highly relevant as it indicates how the DI, and ID supporters more generally, are framing it. Perhaps it needs a better form of words; I'll come up with something and post it here for further discussion. Prioryman (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:ABOUTSELF does not distinguish between fact and opinion -- it states "as long as (1) the material is not unduly self-serving" (my emphasis). How it is being used is already blindingly obvious -- we really don't need to give WP:UNDUE weight to Dembski, who AFAIK has no official responsibility within the DI for the Dissent, to make a point that has already been made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others say. So far we've only heard from two people; others may have different views. In the meantime, since you have no problem with the other changes I made and we've had no actionable objections to them, I'll restore them with some amendments. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)