Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV dispute?

Hi everyone,

An edit by an anonymous user added the {{POV}} tag to the top of the page.

The following essay section is relevant:

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

If no such section materializes within a week, I'll remove the {{POV}} tag.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just removed. Lots of people don't like the fact that the DI is called on its nonsense, but that's not a reason to put up with drive-by tagging. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 06:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First let me apologize for the anonymity of my POV tag, I was not logged in at the time, and it was my very first edit, so please forgive my not adding the NPOV dispute section on the talk page, as I was still figuring out how to even use the talk page. ;-) As to which part of the article doesn't contain a neutral point of view, I believe that much of it does not, but I will cite several specific examples for the sake of argument. The very fact that almost the entire introductory paragraph centers around the controversies concerning one aspect of the Institute, and not a simple factual presentation of the organization's basic purpose and function is highly biased. Phrases like "the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community" are deeply ingrained with bias, and while pertinent to the controversy surrounding the Institute, are not functionally sound as neutral descriptions of the Institute - certainly not from the standpoint of the introductory paragraph. The anti-intelligent design perspective is not the defining characteristic of the Institute, and as such should not feature prominently in the basic introduction to the article. The NAACP is also a controversial organization, yet their introduction simply states the organization's goals and function. Any controversy is reserved for areas of the article where they are strictly pointed out as controversial, and not used to redefine the organization according to the bias of the editor.

I understand the previous editor's comment that "lots of people don't like the fact that the DI is called on its nonsense", but correct me if I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not the forum for calling anyone on their nonsense, at least not in the articles. I have no troubles with dissenting opinions concerning ideas being presented, but when ideas are presented as fact with little concern (or worse, disdain) for opposing ideas then we have stepped out of the realm of neutrality that we are to be striving for in the creation of a collaborative encyclopedia. While the scientific community may hold little love for the intelligent design debate, the general public is statistically (by a 9 to 1 margin) more in line with the Institute's perspective, thus making the pejorative statements to the contrary even more representative of a non-neutral and undue pov.

Another example of the lack of NPOV is the controversy section. It reads like an editorial bent on convincing the reader of the truth of its claims, with very little representation of the Institute's stances or responses to the criticisms. Phrases like "The proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial," with no countering statements to the contrary betray an assumption (or assertion) that the ideas are uncontested, when that is clearly not the case (in this single case, simply replacing "proof" with "argument" would - I believe - satisfy POV concerns). Most of the section is made up of anti-Discovery Institute quotes (understandably) with nothing to balance the perspective at all. I'm sure this is just due to the majority of editors on this article coming from an anti-ID perspective and there not being a good representation of editors who can accurately posit the balancing arguments, but that does not diminish the fact that there is a problem with the gross under-representation of the Institute's actual perspective from a non-hostile and non-pejorative approach.

I do not deny that there is plenty of controversy surrounding the organization and the issues it champions, and as such, articles concerning them will be difficult to edit to say the least. What I do not understand is why there is so much hostility towards having the POV tag when there is clearly a measure of dissent against the neutrality of the article. The tag only informs the casual reader that what they are reading may not fully represent all sides of the debate neutrally. Unless there is some agenda to present as fact what there is still actually little consensus on, then I think the tag should stand until sufficient editing can be done to remedy the situation. I intend to do some more work to this end, and to invite others to do so as well, but in the mean time, the POV tag is informative and represents the best intentions of Wikipedia to maintain neutrality of perspective when dealing with sensitive subjects. I am going to replace the tag, because I still believe firmly that it is warranted. I do not wish to engage in edit wars or debates over the two sides of the issues at hand, but rather it is my hope that we can make Wikipedia better by having articles that accurately and neutrally represent the full spectrum of ideas concerning the topics we are dealing with.

--Laynerogers (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Laynerogers second paragraph statement "I understand the previous editor's comment that 'lots of people don't like the fact that the DI is called on its nonsense', but correct me if I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not the forum for calling anyone on their nonsense, at least not in the articles." I'm going to take you up on your invitation to correct you. Wikipedia is absolutely the forum for calling someone on their nonsense. Nonsense is, by definition, unreliable non-knowledge. There are topics upon which reasonable people can disagree, such as the effectiveness of monetary policy or the degree of influence Nietzsche's works on the development of the Nazi Party's ideology. The scientific credibility of ID is NOT one of those topics. ID is not science. It doesn't follow the scientific method, its unfalsifiable, unverifiable and cannot be adequately tested. It is, at best, pseudoscience (although truthfully it fits better with religious gish gallop). For Wikipedia to treat it as science, or even a topic upon which reasonable people may disagree, would be to blur the line between science and nonsense. You may dislike evolution because it conflicts with your theological upbringing, but it is still the ONLY scientific theory to explain the diversity of life. As such, an organization like DI is an inherently ridiculous institution, and thus by definition deserving of ridicule. DI puts forth ID a science, when their own internal documentation reveals that their sole purpose is to shoehorn theism into public school classrooms (implicitly recognizing that their "theory" is nothing but a means to an end, the end being christian indoctrination in public schools). It is incumbent upon Wikipedia to alert readers to institutional disinformation, and that is exactly what this article does. Also, it is clear that DI has been successful in disseminating disinformation, as evidenced by your (and others') accusation of "bias."

Also, DI purports ID to be a fact. As such, the matter of evolution vs. creationism/ID is not one of competing opinions. It is fact competing with nonsense, and in an Encyclopedia, facts win and nonsense is called out as nonsense. I only wish that you (and other creationists) had learned this before. Worry not, you still have time to recalibrate your ideology to bring it within the realm of reason. Also, if you happen to find any actual evidence that disproves the theory of evolution, please bring it up (thats how science works).184.75.220.26 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The above IP edit was mine (I forgot to log before editing). Many apologies.Skberry889 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that we represent what can be found in reliable sources, proportionate to their prominence. All scientific organizations are universal in confirming a) intelligent design is creationism, and b) the DI is not a scientific organization - it's religious, pretending to be scientific. You may not like that Dover v. Kitzmiller came down negative, but it did so for a reason - intelligent design is creationism, not science. Your assertions, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, lack of familiarity with the critical (reliable) sources, and failure to provide any sources to substantiate your point means you don't have a point to make here. Get some reliable sources, then we'll talk. Intelligent design is not science - it is creationism. {{POV}} is not a badge of shame. I'm removing it again. You may believe firmly that it is warranted, but bluntly your opinion is worthless. Get some sources. In this case, there are no sides - the DI is wrong, lying, and does not have a coherent set of ideas to express.

We're hostile because creationists want to "tell both sides". Teach the Controversy has its own article. We're sick of having to defend science from religious zealots who don't understand why science rejects their arguments but somehow think they can "preach the truth" and change the page. You can't.

Please shorten your posts and include reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article unnecessarily editorializes. The tone is not even remotely neutral; rather, it uses highly loaded terminology (it introduces it as promoting "the psuedoscience intelligent design"). Not even the article on alchemy has an introduction like that - just a description of what it is. Imagine if you introduced an article on a major theologian by calling him "John Smith is known for his heretical denial of the Trinity" - would that be biased terminology? The article also implies that no controversy over the ideas exist. News flash: regardless of your opinion on the topic, there IS a controversy. Fact: whether you like it or not a sizable percent of the population agrees with creationism and/or intelligent design and disagrees with evolution. Sounds like a controversy to me. I'm sorry that upsets you but it's a fact. The fact that we're even having this discussion proves that there's a controversy. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversy if you want a source on that. Also, the discussion of the court case belongs in a separate section, not in the introduction. There is no discussion of the Institute's response to the court case. It's also a little bizarre to use the opinion of a judge (who has a legal background) as a primary source for proving that their ideas aren't scientific; this is not at all typical. Again, what you think of the court case is irrelevant here; this isn't a forum to editorialize, only to present the facts. This issue isn't just in that one area - this article repeatedly presents criticism of the Institute as settled fact without even bothering to mention counterbalancing arguments. Again, I happen to agree that the differences between intelligent design and the variants of creationism are subtle at best but that's irrelevant. The author of this article has an obvious ax to grind against the Institute and I simply don't think that Wikipedia's an appropriate forum for that. EJS2014 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing giving "equal validity to pseudoscience, which is clearly against policy. The arguments you put forward fail; you should really study what reliable third party sources say about this organization and the pseudoscience it's promoting, and have a look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI policy. . dave souza, talk 19:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The descriptor "pseudoscience" does not belong in the lead paragraph. The point of the article is to describe the Discovery Institute, not make editorial comments about its validity. ... discospinster _talk 20:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of intelligent design is a prominent, well-publicized feature of the what institute does, and the pseudoscientific nature of ID is reliably sourced. Calling it what it is is hardly an editorial comment. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But it is. That ID is pseudoscience is covered elsewhere in the article, as well as in the ID article itself. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph, particularly when intelligent design is already enclosed in scare quotes. I mean really, we get it. ... discospinster _talk 11:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It is our duty to clarify though. And given Discovery Institute's wedge strategy whose main weapon is obfuscation, I think it really is quite important that we make it clear that they are pseudoscientific in nature from the get-go. Especially when they themselves use names that are seemingly academic ("Discovery Institute", "Center for Science and Culture"), when they are nothing of the sort. Think of it as something like disambiguation.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in a "competition" with DI. It doesn't have a responsibility to respond to the institute's tactics. The intelligent design article describes the view as pseudoscience in the first paragraph. There is no need to preface every other article referring to it in the same way. It's overkill and makes it appear as if Wikipedia has an agenda against the Discovery Institute in particular. The lede just needs to describe what the institute does and get into the criticisms in the body of the article. ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD – "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Why are you trying to hide the controversy? . . dave souza, talk 14:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." It does the reader a disservice to omit such a key point. "Stand alone" means not needing to page down into the article or navigate to another page. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight, and don't edit war.

The editor who has been reverting the consensus should realize we don't do fair and balanced, please read WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Back and forth with IP24.144.1.234 and LittleRockAg about teaching of ID

This text is from my talk page [1], but since it is more appropriately seen here, in the talk page of the Discovery Institute article, I have pasted it here:

Your assertions are incorrect. The OFFICIAL policy statement of the Discovery Institute has been provided in this article. It is not open for debate whether or not this is their stated, public position. It may be debatable, of course, whether or not they practice this policy. However, by removing my edit, you are covering up a factual statement. Thank you. LittleRockAg (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

IP24.144.1.234 (possibly you?) added the assertion: "The Discovery Institute denies that it advocates for intelligent design inclusion in public school classrooms." with this edit [2]. This is, as far as I can see, factually wrong. In fact, the DI advocates for allowing teachers to teach what they want, and that this can include ID; this is clearly stated in the document that you yourself seem to like: [3]. This is a very careful strategy intended to start ID teaching in science classes despite the fact that it is not science. And this is, already, covered in the lead under "teach the controversy". I see that you have now modified your description of the DI stance, you did this with this edit: [4], where you now conceded that the DI does not advocate a mandatory teaching of ID. Your description (above) that I am covering up a factual statement is factually incorrect. You have changed your text. And, like I say, the issue "teach the controversy" is already covered in the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add to the article the point made in Disaster in Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) of Intelligent Design, Peter Irons (2007) p. 85: "In fact, one of the DI authors, David De- Wolf, wrote in 1999 (in a booklet published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) that “[s]chool boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution—and this includes use of text-books such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.”"
which cites David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer & Mark E. DeForrest, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Curriculum (Found. for Thought & Ethics 1999) That publication was available for download from Discovery Institute > Center for Science and Culture > Articles > Teaching the Controversy: dated October 1, 1999 [archived download as now a dead link on the DI's CSC page.] .. . dave souza, talk 19:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on whether or not to include these additional citations/articles, but if they are, then it needs to be made clear that the Discovery Institute has a clearly calculated strategy: permit and encourage some teachers to teach the pseudoscience of intelligent design. From there, the road is slippery all the way to their desired end. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is simply that in 1999 "Teach the Controversy" meant "school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution--and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design". The 2013 edition has retreated to "a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design)". Still weaselly allows "encourage" but backing away from any teaching about ID. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Discovery Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=9757
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=9757

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discovery Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091018063039/http://scienceblogs.com:80/pharyngula/2007/02/happy_intelligent_design_day.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/happy_intelligent_design_day.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

POV and cite check tags

I've had this page on my watchlist for months now, and only today bothered to actually read it. I'm no fan of the organization, but wow, this article violates nearly all of our bedrock policies. A huge amount of content appears to fail verification, and most of the content reads as an attack piece intended to convince the reader of various points rather than simply laying out what the reliable sources say about the organization, as required by our neutrality policy. I understand it can be a challenge to write about an organization that has received such relentless criticism, but in these cases it's important to avoid writing them as attack pieces. I am willing to provide examples upon request. Please discuss and do not remove the tags without discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just reread the lead now (but am unlikely to read the whole article today). At first glance, it seems to me that most of the lead is well referenced, some direct quotes are also included. It's possible that some sources are used out of context (related to the topic but perhaps not directly related enough to the sentence it supports, it's difficult to assess without reading each). While I have the impression that the lead may be slightly long and that it indeed contains a lot of criticism, there seems to be nothing implausible about it. If most reliable sources criticize the organization and the article reflects this, this does not automatically make the article an attack piece (this also depends on the tone the plausibility of the claims, what sources report, etc). Unfortunately some organizations are more infamous than famous; in this case not because of personal beliefs, but because of the political lobbying, deceptive propaganda, promotion of pseudoscience... —PaleoNeonate - 18:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My concerns aren't specifically about the lead section, but since you mentioned it, let's look at it more closely. The second paragraph is a blockquote that has no apparent connection to the DI. The DI isn't mentioned at all, and blockquotes are almost always undue in lead sections. The blockquote implicitly suggests that the article is about discrediting ID, rather than about the DI. It also gives too much weight to the court's viewpoint. The next sentence fails verification. The sources do not say most of what is stated there. The "theory in crisis" quote is poorly attributed. The Wedge Document sentence appears to fail verification and is original research. The last sentence appears to be unsourced, gives further undue weight on the Kitsmiller opinion, and reinforces the notion that this is an essay about ID rather than about the DI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the proper way to present a draft of an edit for discussion before editing the article itself? May I post here a suggested draft replacement for the introduction to the Intelligent Design article that presents first the position and claims of this organization before the existing sections below?Jhoehn (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For short suggestions I recommend to simply quote sentences, i.e. using {{quote|1=paragraph}} or {{tq|1=sentence}} inline in conversations. If copying text from the article, I suggest copying it from the in-editor source rather than from the rendered HTML. If the text includes references, add a {{reflist-talk}} at the end. For larger changes using a sandbox is better. User accounts have sandboxes, the default one usually available via a Sandbox link at the top of the interface, specifically User:Jhoehn/Sandbox. It is also possible to provide links to specific revisions of it using permalinks (see WP:PERMALINK). For more technical help, I recommend asking questions at the Teahouse, Help desk or Village pump (technical) (the latter is better for more advanced issues like bugs). —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Discovery Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/happy_intelligent_design_day.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306170150/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217031633/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I see that defenders of the existing page dearly love the adjective "PSEUDOSCIENCE" and have tagged that unless you "talk about it," any attempt to remove it will be reversed! I don't know who is given authority to do this, but I will try to explain to reasonable people why it must be removed. It discredits the Point of View of neutrality to begin an article with an adjective like this. The pejorative term “pseudoscientific” is a value judgment being applied to the theory of Intelligent Design and does not meet Wikipedia standards of articles having a neutrality in introducing articles. It is analogous to an anti-Darwinian opponent using an adjective like “discredited” to introduce the theories of neo-Darwinian Evolution. These pejorative terms prejudge the cases before presenting the evidence. To later in the article quote some authority as having an opinion that ID is not true science, could be useful, but to introduce the article using that opinion is propaganda, not illumination. The Discovery Institute does promote what they claim is scientific evidence that falsifies Darwinian claims to explain the origin, complexity, and novelty of life. They do not do this based on religious texts, although the implications of this point of view do of course have philosophical consequences. Please have this article discuss the Discovery Institute in neutral terms and leave the opinions of "little Judge Johnny Jones" for later in the article--I have purposively used a pejorative way of discussing Judge Jones to demonstrate what this article must not do. Judge Jones may be big or little, and his family may or may not call him Johnny. but it would be very unfair to present him to the reading public this way. That is exactly what the anti-Intelligent Design authors have done this this article. "pseudoscience" has no place in the introduction, and should appear only later as a documented opinion, not from the omniscient anonymous author, who is sadly unable to restrain his/her bias to the loss of neutrality and objectivity. Jhoehn (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed this particular issue, so I don't know where I stand on it, but just reading your comment I'd like to make a suggestion: please review our neutrality policy closely before proceeding. You might be surprised by what it says. The gist of the policy is that we should reflect what the reliable sources say in a balanced way. "Pseudoscience" is not a pejorative term. It's factual and descriptive. If all reliable sources say that something is pseudoscience, then we say it's pseudoscience too. I don't know if that's the case in this situation, but I'm recommending that you focus your arguments on what our neutrality policy says, rather than your own personal views of what neutrality means. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually a policy. Please read WP:PSCI. Please also review the archives of this page and other pages where you might consider raising the issue. Discussion has been had before. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy, I am an expert on propaganda. And the introduction of an article purporting to be about the organization known as the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE that begins with an attack on the very agenda the institute has, is not an article about the Discovery Institute it is an attack on the Discovery Institute. I am aware of the agenda the Discovery Institute has, and although the most egregious is allowing this pejorative "pseudoscientific" to poison the article based on the authoritarian views of its powerful opponents, there are many other errors of fact in the introduction.

The Discovery Institute is not "anti-evolution." Most of its fellows believe that "evolution" is real and has happened. [Michael Behe's later book is called THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION, and is not suggestion that life does not evolve, but that evolution has edges, limits, that Darwin's theory has transgressed.] It is also not an "evangelical" Christian organization. Many of its fellows are theists, some are agnostic, some are church going Christians, but as an "evangelical" Christian myself, this is NOT an "evangelical" organization.

Discovery Institute is anti-Darwinian-materialistic-suppositions on the Origin of life, the creation of Complexity seen in living mechanisms, the development of novelty suddenly and abundantly in very short geologic time. The Discovery Institute is anti-Darwinian because Darwinian-postulated-mechanisms for the creation of the information necessary for even the oldest most primitive life forms do not work. Mutations and natural selection as a motor for those challenges can be falsified by evidence. Many modern evolutionists recognize this. Scientists are not jumping into the baptism tank to become "evangelical" Christians to my knowledge, but many scientists are honestly and often quietly searching for non-Darwinian mechanisms to explain what they see in their science. The Discovery Institute is not sending out Bible studies, they propagandizing the scientific information that challenges Darwin on the origin and complexity of life. That is not anti-evolution, it is anti-Darwinian-evolution. That is not "evangelical" Christianity. That is a minority opinion asking to let the anti-Darwinian science be heard and thought about honestly, without being shut down before the conversation begins. Jhoehn (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "pseudoscience" has been codified by listing a lot of para-science or alternative science organizations or beliefs. I do not wish to argue here if Intelligent Design belongs on that list. But this article is on THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, and to introduce the institute with an attack on its legitimacy is not neutral, even if the discussion will end with a consensus opinion that many have decided its advocacy in no deserving of the name of science. So I'll leave the topic to the Intelligent Design page, but I must insist that the Discovery Institute be presented fairly and accurately by a neutral point of view, not by starting the article with anti-ID advocacy. 68.189.142.62 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You would need to find reliable sources confirming that they are advocating real science (and enough such sources to outweight the reliable sources which describe it as a religious movement that is also promoting pseudoscience). —PaleoNeonate – 05:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this important question if the Discovery Institute is promoting pseudoscience or real science is irrelevant to the presentation of the Discovery Institute organization. The present article is organized adversarially by obvious opponents, by introducing them as " pseudoscientific" which is another way of saying "quacks" and suggesting from the start that they are also devious and scheming. That the Discovery Institute is an organization that has an open and public agenda including Intelligent Design is fact. That they are devious and trying to slip in religion clothed with science is the opinion of doctrinaire Darwinists and philosophical materialists. That should come down later in the article discussing controversy, opposition, and then clearly show what the Discovery Institute claims, and then what their opponents claim. I have no objection to listing the reasons the editors feel they belong on the list of pseudoscience, but the fact is that all scientific revolutions, including Darwin's, were initially opposed by the leading scientific organizations of the day, and were clearly minority opinions. Galileo can explain this to us. Or another way of saying it is that "scientific revolutions sometimes happen one death at a time" because scientists that have invested their lives in a theory are not quick to see its weaknesses, it takes younger, fresh minds often to grasp the need for change of paradigms. The Discovery Institute is a small organization with large goals, and that is to overthrow the dominant theory of the origin and complexity of life. They can be presented as a minority, and their opponents can continue to fight the science they promote. But the present article is as "neutral and unbiased" as having Trump write the entry for the biography of Hilary Clinton. Can't we find a neutral editor to present the Discovery Institute instead of a partisan?Jhoehn (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd much rather we followed reliable sources, rather than ignore WP:PAG as you propose. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop using this talk page to state your opinions. Please suggest changes to content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. I'll be closing this thread soon, as this Talk page is not for general discussion of the topic, nor for people's feelings about what the article says. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

One opinion holding that the Discovery Institute tried to "slip in religion clothed with science" came from a federal judge. In a discussion of science, it is seldom, if ever, fruitful to compare the underdog to Galileo. Sooner rather than later will be a good time to close this thread. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Darwin's, were initially opposed by the leading scientific organizations of the day, and were clearly minority opinions": evolution indeed became mainstream because good biology science continued, supporting, correcting and improving it (far beyond what Darwin could in his time). What the DI proposes is different. "Partisan" would be apologetics or supporters of the organization with a conflict of interest. "Can't we find a neutral editor": what matters is what reliable sources say; I hope that you don't consider mainstream schoolbooks and biology books "partisan". I highly recommend reading evidence of common descent and some of its sources. —PaleoNeonate – 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• The editor(s) complaining here are clearly not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia and we should try not to bite them. To the extent they are saying that intelligent design shouldn't be described as pseudoscience, I haven't seen any arguments supported by the policies and guidelines that have already been mentioned. However to the extent they are saying that this article should be re-written as it's essentially a coatrack to debunk intelligent design, I agree with that sentiment. It is the subject of the discussion immediately above. If we are to make headway I suggest we keep the two discussions separate. This one is about describing ID as pseudoscience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for the civility and patience offered me. I agree until the Discovery Institute is able to convince more scientists of the soundness of their scientific arguments it is appropriate to report to the reading public that the majority opinion is that they are promoting a "pseudoscience." But an article on the Discovery Institute that is a "coatrack" (an article denouncing Intelligent Design, instead of an article describing the Discovery Institute) as described above does need to be rewritten. The article on the Discovery Institute needs to fairly and clearly state the published and open points of view of the Discovery Institute as to what they are promoting and the tools they use. So I will close my comments on "pseudoscience" and let time and evidence clarify that. But I'll continue to request a rewrite of the article on the Discovery Institute that fairly describes exactly what they promote and the methods they claim to use, before tarring and feathering them as, in essence, "dishonest deceivers promoting junk" from the introductory paragraph.Jhoehn (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Jhoehn's scaled-back concerns. They are encapsulated by the second paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE: "This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pages like this end up this way because advocates for pseudoscience show up Protesting the Injustice. The article doesn't say "dishonest deceivers promoting junk" because that approaches a BLP violation; it is not a reasonable description of the article.Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What are the Institute's claims to notability, other than promoting Intelligent Design as a means of teaching the controversy? It would be a mistake to present that without noting the objective disingenuousness of it. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Jytdog. The article is really an effort to debunk the ID theory rather than an article about DI the organization. Yes the organization's reason for being is ID, and yes we should say ID is pseudoscience. But the article goes way beyond that and strays well into coatrack land. In any case, this is no longer about whether to label ID as pseudoscience; continued discussion about broader POV issues belongs in the thread immediately above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The article mostly describes what DI does. It spends little time on ID itself. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You have to actually read the article before making that assessment. E.g. for a detailed breakdown of the lead section, read the discussion above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

that was a remarkably silly thing to write, Dr F. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As JPB says. WP articles on organizations cannot shy from identifying them as propagandists for a bankrupt idea as being such, particularly when that is their principal reason for being. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and it's admins prove without a doubt their operational bias and hypocrisy in allowing "The Discovery Institute" and "Intelligent Design Theory" to be so blatantly slandered by unneutral sources. PROOF: "Multi-verse theory", "String theory", and "Simulated Reality Theory" - ALL receive treatment as legitimate scientific theories. Not ONE, not even "simulated reality theory" is labeled as pseudoscience! JonnyManziel (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Because they're not pseudoscience, unlike "intelligent-design theory", which is. --Calton | Talk 15:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, proof of operational bias. As in, we wouldn't want to follow our community standards, would we? But seriously, this is not the place to take issue with community standards such as our policy on pseudoscience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Those above-mentioned theories and hypotheses do not attempt to distort much of science to conform to an ideology. Belief in deities and the supernatural are not pseudoscience by themselves either. If to justify my belief in Zeus I have to distort science with "alternative science", or if I start using a belief system portrayed as a science to heal my physical body, then I'm beginning to practice pseudoscience. You will find a number of reliable sources describing such as pseudoscience (some are used in this article). If by "biased" sources you mean sources independent of the DI, that's precisely one of the criteria for reliable sources... —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that it has been established here, in academia and in the courts of law that "Christian science" is religion, and that the Discovery Institute is indeed dedicated to pushing pseudoscientific concepts through its No. 1 campaign: Teach the Controversy. These facts have been evaluated for an extended time in the light of Wikipedia's pillars and policies, so the neutrality/factual bias tag should be removed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The R template

Should we replace the inline cites with the {{R}} template? The way the article is now written it is very difficult to edit with most of the edit window being filled with the references such that is is quite difficult to see where the text starts and ends. This will not result in any loss of information and proably will not be even visible to the readers, but it will make it way more easier to edit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.discovery.org/about/ and https://www.discovery.org/about/mission/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

During the deletion discussion for the page Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, I suggested merging that article into this one. Comments are welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was to merge, so I've gone ahead and implemented that. Further condensation might well be possible. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Discovery Institute

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Discovery Institute's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wilgoren":

• From Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns: Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21, 2005.
• From Center for Science and Culture: Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-05-06.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed; thank you, bot! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

There is a notice on the article about copyright violations, but I don't see any copyrighted text currently being used. What is the issue, and how can it be resolved? Marquardtika (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In the notice, it says, amongst other things, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." So we should wait " ... until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would speculate that a creationist has complained to the OTRS email address about something, and per process, things are happening. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone promoting the Institute's doctrine was disrupting the Abiogenesis article and its talk page. I imagine a couple of creationists are pushing for changes in Wikipedia to change the world. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Marquardtika, you can see how much of the 2005 copyvio is still in the article by using this tool; the best resolution of the problem would be for someone to write a copyvio-free version of the article at this temporary page.

Roxy the dog, Rowan Forest, it was I who blanked the page, not because of any creationist or any other -ist conspiracy or complaint, but because when I came here to do a routine revision-deletion, I ran Earwig's tool on the remaining content (as I routinely do in such cases) and unearthed a problem going back to 2005. What makes it difficult to resolve is that the editor responsible has more than 300 edits to the page, and all of those have to be ... well, treated with caution. The version before those edits began is this one; I'd be reluctant to roll back to that, but if no other solution is forthcoming that may be the best option. Any better suggestion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I'm quite mystified. Is it possible that Earwig is malfunctioning? None of the content that the Earwig link says is currently in the article actually is in the current article. For example, Earwing pings "underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can" as a copyvio, but none of that content is actually in the current article. Am I missing something...? Marquardtika (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I see the issue now--the copyvio notice must be hiding a bunch of text that was unhidden when I removed it. The copyvio text must be in the hidden text. I will take a stab at fixing the copyvio issues. Stay tuned! Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still totally confused by this, despite some time looking carefully, and have no idea what is going on. That doesn't matter much because I see that some people do. Thanks Justlettersandnumbers and Marquardtika. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 01:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for way forward

Marquardtika, thanks for offering to help with the clean up. The copyvio blanking template isn't terribly clear about how to go about this (requires clicking the third [show] link). Note that, as it states at the top of the blanking template, editors must not edit the blanked content on the actual article page. The blanked sections need to be rewritten from scratch at Talk:Discovery Institute/Temp. Do not paste in text there from the blanked copyvio version and then attempt to tweak it. It will render the temporary page unusable. I have created Talk:Discovery Institute/Temp to get you started. It contains the outline of the sections and all the references that were used for each section. Once the rewrite is completed, place a notice on this talk page. An administrator will check it to verify that it contains no copyvio in the final version nor in the history. It will then be moved into the current article and all revisions there will be deleted from this one to this one. Although I put all all the previous section headings from the original version in the Temp version, there is no need to cover them all. Nor is there a need to cover them in the turgid, bludgeoning depth that they were in before the blanking. This is especially true given the existence of separate articles on Biologic Institute, Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Another and simpler alternative, if no one minds a very short article with a large collection of "see alsos", would be for an administrator to simply remove all the blanked material and revision delete from this one to this one. The article could later be expanded gradually directly in article space. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC) (copyright clerk but not an adminstrator)

Thank you, Voceditenore. I don't personally have the will to rewrite the article at this time, so I think unless someone else volunteers, I think your last solution is best (rev deleting the problem content and leaving us with a short article that can be expanded). Marquardtika (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I also favor a new short article. It has the added benefit that can be written in its present context with a bit of its history. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Like Marquardtika and Rowan Forest, I too favour the option of a short article produced in situ via rev deletion which can later be gradually and judiciously re-expanded. I personally don't touch articles in this area. They are a magnet for POV editing and edit-warring on both sides and end up being turgid to the point of unreadability and a complete time-sink for editors. However, below are some suggestions for whoever takes on a re-expansion.

The blanked material in this article verbosely repeated material from a whole suite of articles directly about the Discovery Institute's programs, campaigns and sub-organizations:

• Biologic Institute
• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
• Center for Science and Culture
• Teach the Controversy
• Wedge strategy

Plus, there are multiple articles about issues and organizations with which the Discovery Institute was closely involved and were covered again in the blanked material:

• John Templeton Foundation
• Kansas evolution hearings
• Santorum Amendment
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

There are also articles on books about the DI or written by its fellows, currently not covered in the blanked material:

• Creationism's Trojan Horse (highly critical of the DI)
• The Design of Life (written by DI Senior Fellows William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells)
• Icons of Evolution (also written by Jonathan Wells)
• Darwin's Black Box (written by DI Fellow Michael Behe)

Another problem is that much of the blanked content may well be out-of-date (especially on its funding) and is referenced to sources more than 10 years old, many of them broken links. In my view, this article should ultimately contain a concise history of the DI and its constituent organizations and then provide annotated links to related articles. That would be of far more help to readers who want a quick overview of the DI, rather than the lengthy re-litigation of the Intelligent Design campaigns and controversies, replete with claims and counter claims. I completely glazed over trying to read it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, more or less as proposed here (I left a couple of sentences of history which seem to be OK). In case anyone wants to refer to them, here are all the references that were in the blanked version (i.e., including those that are used in the article):

References
References

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I see one paragraph copied from the NYT source, beginning with "Since its founding in 1996..." Is there anything else in the article that's problematic? Or can we restore the rest? Guettarda (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for cleaning this up, Justlettersandnumbers. Sorting through that much history cannot have been fun. Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, I've just done – as near as I could – what was suggested and agreed here on this page. There've been three months in which anyone who wanted to could have rewritten the content, but no-one came forward. As I've said above, I was reluctant to revert to this revision before the 300+ edits by FeloniousMonk began (which would have been the standard solution here), as that version did not seem to me either well-sourced or neutral, and was also thirteen years out of date. Of course anyone is free to (re-)add any content provided that they've verified it to be free of copyvio; in my opinion that should in any case not include any text contributed by FM – someone who has copied wholesale from one source is very likely to have copied from others too. I don't plan to go through all of those 323 edits; however, a very quick check shows that, for example, this edit included content copied from here (or more probably from some common source). I've seen no evidence of copyvio by any other contributor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The introduction is not written with a neutral POV

The introduction is an embarrassingly one-sided POV of the Discovery Institute. There are many POV's on the Discovery Institute and only one is represented here. The bias of the authors of the introduction is on grand display and fails to serve the general public who might want a more objective representation of the Discovery Institute. Based on other pages I've seen in this area that have been edited to remove biased POV, it would fail because the same people are probably hovering over this page as well to make sure the bias remains. I wouldn't complain if you managed to include information supportive of the Discovery Institute. Rcronk (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Wikipedia is strongly biased toward science, and any subject known to be a pseudo-science is treated as such. In these cases, we do not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. Please see: WP:PSCI Rowan Forest (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"known to be pseudo-science" are just weasel words. Darwin himself used inference to the best explanation, which is what Intelligent Design proponents use based on the rejection of materialistic only theories that cannot explain the origin of the information found in DNA - something Darwin didn't have access to. ID is even falsifiable by simply finding any method for the creation of sufficient amounts of specified information to construct even the simplest of cells without a mind behind that information. Anyway, talk pages aren't for debate. I just get frustrated when people shut opposing views down by simply defining them as being "unacceptable" as you and others have. I don't expect the article to be whitewashed, but there is solid logic that shows that ID is at least as scientific as Darwin's theory. Yet you don't have that in the introduction. And if I put it there, you'd revert it. I've played the Wikipedia power game before and I'm not as good at it as those who hover incessantly over the pages that threaten their worldview. Other than that, the intro is perfect.  :) Rcronk (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You are starting at the wrong end. Wikipedia just repeats what reliable sources say. If you want to change what this article says in order to line up with your opinion that "there are many POV's", as opposed to the scientific consensus "the DI does pseudoscience", you have to make the reliable sources say that. Wikipedia will follow. Bye! --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done that with other pages and when I quote any source that the watchers of the article disagree with, they simply call it an ”unreliable source” and revert it. It’s an annoying game, but I'll try it here on this article and see what happens. Rcronk (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Carry on like this, and the results will be ugly. Wikipedia encourages editors to follow policy and guidelines when editing. Announcing that you have decided not to follow WP:P&G is probably not wise from your POV. Thanks though. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Roxy - If I decide to edit the page, I'm going to follow policy and guidelines. The introduction paints a biased picture and doesn't actually let people know both points of view. I think people deserve to know what both sides are asserting. And I'm actually fine with not treating both sides the same too. Rcronk (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The venue for resolving disputes about whether a source meets Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It has an extensive searchable archive. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! Rcronk (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"there is solid logic that shows that ID is at least as scientific as Darwin's theory. " --Rcronk

That is one key threshold: when logic dismisses the known laws of nature/physics and leaps into the faith of creation, it ventures into religion. Using scientific language to describe that faith makes it pseudo-science at best. You can certainly document in this article how much the Discovery Institute believes in creation, and its methods for teaching it, but there has been no change in the world-wide scientific consensus for Wikipedia to "Teach the Controversy"(®). Rowan Forest (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You're setting up a bit of a strawman there. There's no violation of laws of physics - that's an overreach on your part. All they seem to be asserting is that if you find artifacts that have the characteristics of design by an intelligent mind (like an archeologist finding pottery, cave drawings, etc.) you don't have to assert who that mind was, just that it wasn't rain and wind that made the pottery and cave drawings. What is being found in DNA and the thousands of interconnected, 3D-printed, information-driven nanomachines in each living cell looks to be created by a mind rather than purely materialistic processes. It's a mathematically rigorous theory that makes more sense than the operationally impossible theory that those structures and information just came together without the guidance of a mind. You can assert that pottery was made by intelligent beings without having to assert anything whatsoever about who those beings were. SETI is following the same principles as well by searching for signals/information that has the characteristics of being generated by an intelligent mind rather than materialistic processes alone. Sorry for engaging in debate on a talk page. If the main page had this information in it in an unbiased manner, perhaps I wouldn't have to say it in the talk page.  ;) Rcronk (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I cant stop laughing. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Solid argument there, Roxy. Rcronk (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't making an argument. I was laughing at you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

While I admire Roxy's patience, we shouldn't laugh at other editors, no matter how barking. While Rcronk is faithfully reiterating the kool-aid, we don't have to go over this well debunked ground: see WP:MNA and insist on WP:PSCI policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, the science of physical magic: wave two hands and create the universe; wave one hand and create one man; wave one of his ribs and create a woman. Solid logic there, and your "mathematically rigorous theory", published by Disney I believe, is amazingly accurate. But in seriousness, perhaps Intelligent design and science may be a better option for you to edit if you wish to expand somewhat on a particular POV while being mindful of WP:PSCI guidelines. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"I’ve done that with other pages" No you have not. You have quoted unreliable sources from a pseudoscientific subculture. What I meant was: do really good science, publish it in really reliable sources - as in: real scientific journals - turn around the scientific consensus by the quality of your reasoning. Then Wikipedia will follow. The way you are trying to do it is completely pointless. Wikipedia Will. Not. Follow. The. Crackpots. You can go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and suggest that ID literature is reliable, and you will just earn more laughter.

Of course, the problem is that the quality of ID reasoning is extremely low and has never convinced anybody who knows the first thing about how science is done. So, the way I suggest will very probably not work either. The real best way to resolve your dilemma is to learn how to tell science from bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are versions of the article from July 2005 – January 2019 hidden?

It's impossible to see what the page looked like during those years. Is it due to copyright issues? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it. See Log info for this page [5].--McSly (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing refs

In the lead, "pseudoscientific" has three references: [7] Boudry 2010, [8] Pigliucci 2010, [9] Young & Edis 2004. Ref 7 works but the other two are broken. Their wikitext is merely:

<ref>[[#Pigliucci 2010|Pigliucci 2010]]</ref>
<ref>[[#Young & Edis 2004|Young & Edis 2004]] pp. 195-196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?</ref>

I've spent a few minutes diving into the history, much of it revision deleted and needing admin rights to view. I can only find revisions where the wikitext is as given above (broken), or refs 8 and 9 are not present. Can anyone fix this? Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --tronvillain (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Limited focus, editorializing

The Discovery Institute is involved in more than just promoting intelligent design theory; they advocate for education reform and free enterprise as well as support technology research. To be more thorough I'd like to add this to the opening section.

The statement 'when in fact there is none' at the end of the opening paragraph is editorializing; the very existence of this institute implies there is at least some controversy. Whether the controversy has merit is different from whether dissenting views exist. Their 'Scientific Dissent from Darwin' document lists over 1000 (I rough-counted 1200+) scholars who have signed the statement further supporting the statement that there is some controversy to be considered; I chose a few to examine and the ones I looked at seem respected and credible.

The general tone of links on this page is that scientific controversy is thinly veiled religious belief, but articles and videos I found present more depth than that and contain valid scientific criticism. I would not wish to draw conclusions, just allow this page to acknowledge the existence of rational scientific disagreement.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

As I have never edited a Wikipedia article before I thought I should post these ideas before editing to ensure I am not breaking any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleenheer (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

the very existence of this institute implies there is at least some controversy Of course not. I could establish an organization today, call it an "institute" and have it claim that the earth is shaped like a gummi bear. That would not make the scientific fact that the earth is not shaped like a gummi bear controversial.

Science is not done by collecting signatures from "scholars". Science is done by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals. ID proponents have succeeded in doing this a few times, but only by dishonest tricks. Their work does not have the quality needed to succeed honestly.

It does not matter that you have read articles that convinced you that ID is science. It only matters that peer reviewers have not read any articles that convinced them.

It was a good idea not to edit the article. Your edits would have been reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh right. Education reform, free enterprise, technology research. No problem with that, as long as the wording does not suggest that the institute is something it is clearly not.

Let me guess: Their "education reform" consists of starting to teach religiously-inspired crackpot biological theories, e.g. ID.

Pro-free-enterprise think tanks are notoriously anti-science; they typically promote climate change denial and, since this year, COVID-19 denial. Also, tobacco is healthy, according to them.

Technology research? Meh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mleenheer Agree with Hob Gadling. You may want to read the Wikipedia articles Objections to evolution and specifically Project Steve as it responds to your argument about scientist support for 'a controversy' . The Discovery Institute list of scientists includes a large proportion of scientists that have no expertise in the field of evolution. What does a scientist with a PhD in engineering have to do with biology? There is disagreement within science as such disagreement is part of the methodology of science but this does not mean that there isn't almost universal current agreement that evolution is a fact and evolution by natural selection is the current best method discovered. The Discovery Institute is not a credible organisation (for the purposes of disputing evolution) considering its past behaviour and its core goals and any projects they have are very likely to be driven by the core goals that are religiously motivated. You just have to read Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District to understand this. Robynthehode (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mleenheer. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. The article should present information on both sides and allow people to follow up on a they see fit. This article is pitching an ideology just like the two commented above claim the Discovery Institute does. The article does editorialize and present a point of view as fact. 24.255.231.11 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't. . dave souza, talk 05:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Other issues

The Discovery Institute has published, both on its own web site and in other media, articles critical of Critical Race Theory, public transport, governmental homelessness response, and other topics. This article focuses singly on intelligent design, but it is badly incomplete. White 720 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

To add these, we'd need reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to show significance and context of their articles: the DI is not reliable, and with ID has promoted fringe theories. See WP:PSTS. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s a source about the DI and CRT: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/christopher-rufo-and-the-critical-race-theory-moral-panic.html

And another about a DI article on homelessness in the ‘’New York Post’’: https://filtermag.org/skid-row-media-portrayal/amp/ White 720 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"politically conservative"

Opening sentence defines the institute as "politically conservative". This is undoubtedly true of its leadership and originating organization (Hudson). But the activities of Discovery Institute described in the article sources are only religious in nature, i.e., promoting intelligent design and creationism. Whereas Hudson is non-religious but highly political in nature, so establishing the offshoot is a sort of "separation of church and state" as separate thinktank.

Looking more closely at the current sources they use phrases like "conservative Christian values", meaning traditional religious beliefs rather than conservative American politics, and do not provide evidence of conservative political activity.

Is there information anywhere about Discovery's political activities (if any) outside the sphere of creationism? Sesquivalent (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: you can look at some of the articles on their site.[6]. Or this on their commentary on the 2020 US election. Or an old NYT article.[7]. It's founder is politically conservative and I think its mission statement used to be pretty clearly conservative. It obviously campaigns to get creationism taught. See Intelligent Design in politics [Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns]] and Wedge strategy. It wants a conservative United States- no question about that. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: the article misses out the start of the DI's connection to ID, which is covered in Stephen C. Meyer#Intelligent Design third paragraph. That should be included in this article, and a mention of the DI's activities from 1990 to 1995 – mostly transportation policy, according to Huskinson, B.L. (2020). American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market. Christianities in the Trans-Atlantic World. Springer International Publishing. p. 79. ISBN 978-3-030-45435-7. Retrieved 17 November 2021. . . dave souza, talk 12:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

From the beginning, the statement: "The Discovery Institute expresses conservative viewpoints on social issues such as homelessness policy and the COVID-19 response." seems very much like someone's personal opinion. What is the "conservative" (politically? religiously?) opinion on homelessness/covid19, and who decided that was it? When was there a "conservative" opinion regarding homelessness or covid19 that applies to conservatives as if it was part of their philosophy and not just a large part (probably not even a majority) of some who happen to be conservatives? And this is the first I even hear of a homeless-conservative opinion connection.2600:1700:BEB0:CC20:3DD0:6052:3712:3EF5 (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is hard to define a "conservative" position on homelessness or COVID response. It would be better to clarify that the respond follows a party-line or whatever at a particular period of time. But more importantly the conservative social positions are a very minor part of what they do so should probably not be mentioned in the lede, to avoid WP:UNDUE. Ashmoo (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Please make a Criticism section, instead of removing the content."

[8]

Please don't. See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no need anyway. There's already a section and a separate article. - Bilby (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Misstatement about intelligent design

Intelligent design is not pseudoscience. 2601:500:8182:43F0:99CC:259E:8733:A585 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They really don't win, Hob. So-called "reliable sources" have been shown to be wrong before--look at what happened to the Hunter Biden laptop story for a huge example.

Maybe you and other Wikipedia editors should reconsider the concept of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources. As it stands, it is enormously deceptive on millions of individuals. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That is instantly recognizable as irrelevant bullshit because you can apply to everything: You should believe that the Earth is flat because "so-called "reliable sources" have been shown to be wrong before". You should believe that Santa exists for the same reason. And so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Biased Article in English

Explicitly Leftist bias already in the first paragraph. Compare with the same article in other languages. Should be put under Controversies. AlexDrenev (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That just means that the articles in other languages are bad. See older discussions in the archives linked above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Bias

The bias in this article removes all credibility. By the criteria of “pseudoscience” large elements of evolutionary neuroscience are pseudoscience. And evolution primarily uses an archeological and historical epistemology, not a scientific epistemology to support its claims. 199.184.236.202 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP, for the "pseudoscience" qualifier of the this article, please read the archives of this talk page as well as the sources listed in the article. If you think other articles/subjects should be described as pseudoscience, you are welcome to go to those article talk pages and propose the change (don't forget to bring sources to backup your changes). If you have a specific change to propose here, please do so in the form of "Please change X by Y" or "Please insert X between Y and Z" followed by the sources justifying the change. Last thing, the talk pages are not a WP:FORUM, so without a specific change request, we can close this section. --McSly (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be amended that the majority of scientists agree with evolution, rather than there is no controversy.It is also not unfactual to say that scientists who do believe in intelligent design are expelled from the scientific community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, someone has watched a propaganda film.

Science is not about majorities, it is about research. Research is published in peer-reviewed journals. Yes, there is a minority that rejects evolution (and a minority that rejects relativity, and a minority that rejects anthropogenic climate change, and so on), but they have no good reasons for their belief. It is just a belief. That is why their belief does not end up in peer-reviewed journals, except by cheating. And that is why it is not part of science. And that is why there is no bias here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly today science is about consensus, which is in fact based om majority opinion. Neither the evolution of one species to another species nor an act of special creation has been observed. And believing in one or another has no impact on true science which is how the world and the universe of today functions by a set of orderly laws.

Intelligent design is not just a belief system with no good reasons to believe it. What is observable is biogenesis and that intelligence

comes from intelligence. What is observable is that stalictites on kilns made hundreds of years ago, grow faster than the assumption for those in caves. Evolution presents problems such as inorganic matter evolving to organic matter. Because the universe follows a set of laws that do not change, it's logical to conclude that something way outside man's limited knowledge set those laws in place. What is observable is marine fossils on mountain tops. So it is with bias. Bias makes one unable to see one's bias. What is fact is the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. This is fact and not bias.

ce. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Go publish your thoughts in a reliable source, then we may be able to use them. Until then, we cannot, and you are wasting your breath here. We will continue following the reliable sources and not the ideas of random people on the internet.

There is no point in you telling us that you cannot publish your thoughts in a reliable source because reliable sources are part of the cabal. WP:RS does not have a "I am being suppressed" exception clause. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a reliable source https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a and it shows there is controversy. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral stance. Please see guidance on WP:NPOV. TheeFactChecker (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?" has no connection to the Disco Tute clowns. The article does not even mention the Disco Tute. It does mention ID: Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. "Those hostile to science" is the DI. They are not part of the discussion within science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You called a nature article bullshit. I see you have a problem with logic, reason and fact and only argue using insults and opinion, not fact. It is fact that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. It is opinion that there is no controversy in the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You called a nature article bullshit Not true. I called your attempt to use the Nature article for some unconnected subject bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This line is also very weak. First it says perhaps or maybe and second it suggests a fear in the scientific community of the intelligent design spectrum. Why would they have a fear if it's just a belief system not based on anything? The whole line is opinion. Where is the facts in the statement? You've just cherry picked a random line. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What does it prove? The majority of scientists refute intelligent design, despite the controversy. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick skim of that Nature article shows that your claim of "controversy" comes from what looks like a healthy debate about including factors other than genetics in a revision of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Intelligent design is not one of those factors; the debate has nothing to do with the Teach the Controversy narrative espoused by creationists. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thorough research is expected. Not quick skims. I've never heard of the teach the controversy narrative. I find it ridiculous that you cannot even change the wording to be more accurate. The majority of scientists refute intelligent design is an accurate and descriptive statement. Sweeping statements are not accurate. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I provided a link to Teach the Controversy. Now you are aware of it, or ought to be. I read enough of the Nature article to know that framing its subject as a controversy between evolution and ID is bologna. Got any other WP:RS nuggets to share? Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So what constitutes as controversy then? Because any disagreement within the scientific community on evolution or even non acceptance of evolution would not constitute as controversy in your opinion. And no I didn't get my information from watching a propaganda film. My point is you cannot use a sweeping statement such as "there is no controversy" if there is any controversy at all. This makes this a sweeping statement. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

if in your opinion, it would take the majority of many of scientists to dispute evolution, for it to be a controversy, then it is more factual to say "the majority of scientists". TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It has never been my opinion, that "it would take the majority of many of scientists to dispute evolution". Point me to the part of the Nature article you linked where it shows even a few serious scientists (taken seriously by others in their field, unlike Michael Behe) arguing that Intelligent Design is a credible alternative to modern biological evolution. That spurious "controversy" is the topic here; kindly stick to it. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is saying that there are some scientists that believe in intelligent design and there are some scientists that dispute evolution. I can provide many references to prove this. Also you cannot exclude scientists you disagree with as not serious scientists as this is confirmation bias. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the truth is a respected scientist becomes unrespected as soon as they don't believe in evolution. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not an argument. I would have no problem providing you with a list of scientists who believe that the Earth is flat. This is not how science works. You should take a look at Project Steve which nicely debunks that idea. --McSly (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you will struggle providing a list of scientists who believe the earth is flat. This is because the earth by science is proven to be round. However the study of origins is unproven and all we have is the best educated guesses on what happened in the past. Intelligent design proponents use the scientific method and so do those who believe in evolution because the processes that govern the world today are undeniable facts and can be observed. The past cannot be observed and therefore is up to debate. Because no Intelligent design proponent or creationist denies microevolution or adaptation, they just believe there is not enough evidence to show macroevolution or a change from one organism to another such as hominid to human over millions of years. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2017-11-17/ty-article/scientist-comes-out-against-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page/0000017f-e91d-df2c-a1ff-ff5d6afa0000

TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

all we have is the best educated guesses on what happened in the past.

Not so. We have evidence, and plenty of it. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

there is plenty of evidence for intelligent design

The fact that intelligence comes from intelligence

The appearance of design

The fact that genetics shows loss of information over time, not gain of information

The fact that life only comes from life: biogenesis

The fact that no matter how many changes bacteria goes through, it never turns into another organism

The evidence of marine fossils on mountain tops

The fact that in physics something of enormous mass and energy had to start the universe, not a miniscule exploding dot. The Big Bang deifies the law of physics

The universe is deteriorating, not evolving into something better TheeFactChecker (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

genetics shows loss of information over time, not gain of information

how do you define information?

marine fossils on mountain tops

That is evidence of tectonic activity. How do you think it is evidence of intelligent design? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna (certain viruses), such as in the chromosomes or in plasmids. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, how do you quantify it? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Post Darwinism science insists that everything must be explained through naturalistic causes. This means that even if there was overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in the universe or a supernatural experience was encountered, an intelligent being is outside the equation. Pre Darwinism allowed scientists to explore the natural world, and examine all possibilities, including the supernatural. This allowed Isaac Newton to explore the world through the idea of a God of order who put everything in place whereas now believing in intelligent design and science are seen as conflicting when in fact one can believe both and practice groundbreaking discoveries in scientific fields. I will provide my list of scientists later, but they aren't from the list that the comical Steve list was competing. Logic cannot be put in a test tube and it is illogical that the world came to being on its own over billions of years as a result a big explosion. Whereas it is more logical that something that was always there that had all the mass and energy that exists in the world today started everything off as matter cannot be created or destroyed.TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice little micro-essay, but it doesn't answer how you quantify information, nor does it answer how marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of intelligent design. 19:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"All living things experience an increase in entropy, manifested as a loss of genetic and epigenetic information. In yeast, epigenetic information is lost over time due to the relocalization of chromatin-modifying proteins to DNA breaks, causing cells to lose their identity, a hallmark of yeast aging."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638792/#:~:text=All%20living%20things%20experience%20an,a%20hallmark%20of%20yeast%20aging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFactChecker (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

and then there is generation loss in which genetic information is not passed on to the next generation. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That paper looks like it is about individual organisms aging, which is not relevant here. Here is one about new organs arising more than once in a line of guppies. One way to increase genetic information is gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. It may happen only rarely, but it has happened.

Again, how do you quantify genetic information? (Still waiting for an explanation of how marine fossils in lifted strata are evidence of intelligent design.) Just plain Bill (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't know what you are saying. I've quantified what I meant by genetic information. I gave you the rigid definition of what I meant by it. Also it's a massive assumption that these rare occurrences could produce a new organism over millions of years. You are being pedantic on purpose and you know it. You know about generation loss and genetic information loss over time. It's scientific fact. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

maybe instead of an article, I'll quantify it in one word:: genes. If you don't know what a gene is.then you need some intelligent design to fix your brain. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, with the personal attack I guess we've established that you don't know what "quantify" means. It's about numbers and measurement, not wordy hand-waving. How much information is carried by a single gene? A gene is not a unit of information; it is a component in a system including information, redundancy, error detection/correction, and other stuff. The creationist claim that evolution cannot produce new information has been thoroughly debunked, by scientists who are taken seriously by their peers who review their papers. If you want to keep on wasting your time here, go nuts. I can't guarantee timely responses, or any response at all, tbh. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not what I am saying. "Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication. Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication. Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication." Substantial information such as all the information to comprise a gene is how I would quantify genetic information. Information stored by a gene. And yes, it can get frustrating when I am not disputing the fact that most scientists reject intelligent design. I am disputing that there is no controversy whatsoever in the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My list of scientists among others who disagree with some of the fundamentals of evolution are:

RAYMOND TALLIS

LYNN MARGULIS

JERRY FODOR

THOMAS NAGEL

STEVE FULLER

DAVID BERLINSKI

And there is an enormous wealth of evidence of intelligence and design in the universe, even in single celled organisms. TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is your list of flat earth scientists? TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop it.

• Tallis is a physician and clueless biological layman.
• Margulis' ideas have been incorporated into evolutionary biology. She has no connection to Intelligent Design or the Disco Tute.
• Fodor is a philosopher and clueless biological layman.
• Nagel is a philosopher and clueless biological layman.
• Fuller is a sociologist and clueless biological layman.
• Berlinski is a mathematician and clueless biological layman.

You are missing the main point. Even if you convinced everybody here that ID is wonderful and not the disingenious fraud it is, you would be not one step further. What you need are reliable sources that agree with you.' You tried to use the Nature article as such, but, well, WP:NOTDUMB. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I'm doing. I'm simply stating fact and I can provide multiple references that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. It is not fact that there is no controversy within the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And Hob, you don't adhere to this policy. All you use is insults or shouting "stop it" I provide references to reliable sources. I'm not trying to hide anything Hob. Never heard of Disco Tute.

"Wikipedia has norms of decorum, politeness and good faith. " TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But because controversy is redefined and members of the scientific community is redefined by Wikipedia, each reference would be seen in the same light. TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not respond to yourself all the time. I corrected the indentation.

It is not fact that there is no controversy within the scientific community. You still have given no valid evidence of that. "Controversy within the scientific community" happens in peer-reviewed publications, and on the subject of ID there is no such thing.

I provide references to reliable sources Which do not say what you claim they say, therefore they are not relevant here. There is nothing wrong with us Wikipedians pointing that out to you.

"Disco Tute" is a short name scientists give the Discovery Institute in the few cases they mention it. It's a clown college and has no place in science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

'Scientific community" and "controversy" are redefined on Wikipedia and so therefore everything fits nicely into its own bias. It's a shame that a neutral point of view and removal of bias is disallowed on Wikipedia. Changing the statement to "the majority of scientists refute intelligent design" is a factual statement. Saying the "majority of scientists" or "the scientific consensus" is factual, without a bias slant. Stating there is no controversy injects bias as it makes a sweeping statement and uses loaded rather than accurate and factual terminology. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they are redefined by pseudoscientists. Climate change deniers, for instance, like to define the set of climate experts as the set of all scientists instead of, as it should be, just climate scientists. This is exactly the same: ID proponents want to include biological laypeople in order to artificially increase the number of disagreeing "experts". I am sorry that you do not know how science works, but that is not Wikipedia's problem. Repetition does not make your misconception true.

BTW, you may want to look up the definition of "refute". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)