Talk:Biochemical Predestination

A fact from Biochemical Predestination appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Dean H. Kenyon's Biochemical Predestination has been cited as "one of the most widely used graduate textbooks" which expounds that life arose through "natural forces within the constituents of matter itself"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Biochemical Predestination.

Wikipedia

Reliable secondary sources needed

As of now, this is sourced entirely to an unreliable creationist primary source. To meet WP:V, reliable third party coverage in secondary sources is needed. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very surprising promotion of intelligent design by Wikipedia, but nice publicity move by the creationists. --AfadsBad (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly two years since this matter was raised, and yet the article is still clearly way beneath the required Wiki standards.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"...the book was widely considered a plausible theoretical explanation at the time, and became a best-seller"

This is at best ambiguous, at worst, deliberately deceptive. The book "Biochemical Predestination" was never a "best seller" in any sense, and there is no verification for this claim. The sentence reads as though it were fact, although being attributed to William A. Dembski, it is not a quote. Given that it supposedly comes from a documented court case, why is this not properly sourced and quoted? I am very disconcerted with the manner of the whole piece. If the book had any impact at all, why is it that the only references here are puff pieces from fellow creationists? Sentences such as it being "one of the most widely used graduate textbooks" - a patently untrue assertion - are entered here with no comment on their obvious falsity, apparently on the grounds that they are not presented as facts per se, but as quotes from other Creationists. In fact I am not even sure that the books has garnered sufficient interest outside of Creationist PR Departments to even warrant a Wikipedia entry. It is patently clear that the entire article is the work of a Creationists. I am not intimately acquainted with Wiki Rules, but surely this flagrant propaganda cannot be allowed to stand? Personally, I would be inclined to remove the whole thing, but as that is such a drastic action I feel perhaps an objective editor with a greater knowledge of Wiki standards would be better equipped to deal with these worrisome entries.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I propose that this page be deleted on the grounds that the book to which it refers is insufficiently noteworthy in itself. A mention in the publications section of the authors seems to me to be a more appropriate type of entry.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has any views on the matter?Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]