Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Much more material in this previous version. Why was it deleted? (surely not to diminish the writer, I hope). Uncle Ed 11:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Biologist?

He's a biologist. He has a Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology from a prestigious university and he has published papers. Also, he debates biologists about the naturalist history of life.

Why do people try to present him as a person who is ideologically motivated?

The presence of a Ph.D. does not make one a biologist, nor does having two papers. Period. As for the ideological motivation, the relevant quote is right in the article "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." JoshuaZ 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I want him to be called a biologist. In return, you could call him a pseudoscientist (which he is) so put that tag too.

Also, Peter Duesberg is listed as a "biologist." Do you consider him a biologist with his views?

As to your first comment- absolutely not. There is no reason to compromise on facts here, Wells is not a biologist. Note in contrast by the way that Duesberg has a multitude of biology papers (not just two) and actually has taught a variety of bio related courses. Disagreement with their views is not the issue. Productivity as a biologist is. JoshuaZ 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wells pretends to be a biologist. In reality he's a full time Christian apologist who goes round speaking at churches across the USA. — Dunc|☺ 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Kent Hovind. Jonathan Wells posts his work at the Discovery Institute's website. Wells is not a Christian, but a Moonie. Also any reference about his appearences in churches?

This quote shows that he doesn't think Unificationism = Christianity:

"The result, however, is completely different. Before the fall, a sinless person following such a course could have fulfilled the First Blessing by reaching individual perfection; after the fall, a person following such a course cannot even return to the state of original sinlessness, much less achieve individual perfection. (Like Christianity, Unificationism considers fallen people incapable of ridding themselves of sin.) What the prescribed course does, instead, is to distance the person from Satan's dominion, and to lay a conditional foundation upon which God can act."

In his most recent book he had no problem identifying with "traditional Christianity" in any event the basic point that he is an apologist not a biologist is accurate. JoshuaZ 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wells has a legitimate biology degree. In my book, that makes his a biologist, no matter his religious beliefs. Is there some other definition we should be using instead? I understand where the objection is coming from, but saying that he's not really a biologist because he's an ID proponent is NPOV. Is the Surgeon General not a doctor because he doesn't see patients anymore? eaolson 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to explain earlier the reason he isn't a biologist isn't because of his religious beliefs. He isn't a biologist because all he has are two minors papers to his credit and his Ph.D. That doesn't make him a biologist. JoshuaZ 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If a person is trained as a biologist, then it seems to me he is a biologist even if he has never written anything. An M.D. is a medical doctor even if he never does research, writes or practices medicine in any form. That is his training and part of an accurate description. Doc ♬ talk 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. For an MD it would not be accurate to just say that such a person is a doctor. A lack of any medical work would be an important point. And unlike in medicine, in math or the sciences one can be in that category without an end level degree in that area (an example would be the mathematician Andrew Casson who does not have Ph.D. (hmm, we really should have an article on him. I'm surprised we don't but a google search should give you the idea). In these areas what you are doing determines what you are, not what degrees you have (and you will note this is for instance consistent with the defintion given at biologist and other articles for types of scientists). JoshuaZ 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Autobiographical claims in Icons

I'd like to say that I've read Jonathan Wells's book "Icons of Evolution", and I am going to be editing certain sections stating that he is a prominent ID supporter seeing as that he made it very clear in his book that he is not. Rather that he was simply trying to make sure that science remains emperical. Also, information that he himself got his degree to disprove evolution I will also remove since he seems to differ in his book. User:Teckor 20:41 March 2, 2006 ````Teckor

Teckor, please hold off on these edits until a few of us can look over the relevant citations. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, had a chance to look at it. 1) Wells is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, so what evidence do you have that he isn't an IDer other than his own say so? This is interrelated to the fact that the reference for why he got his second PhD is to an essay by him. At most it would possibly make sense to note that he has contradicted himself in his book over what his motivations/intentions were. JoshuaZ 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sry about not holding off. Joshua, would you mind citing the essay where you were given the impression that he is an IDer. User:Teckor 20:47 March 2, 2006

Sorry if I didn't make my meaning clear. Let me try and rephrase: In the essay which is cited in the article already-[2] he seems to say that he did get his second PhD to help defeat Darwinism. If he said otherwise in Icons, that is hardly surprising given what the book is about. Given these details and his other problems with Icons, it is not reasonable to trust his description of himself there as not being an IDer. The best evidence that he is an IDer is that he is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Between that and the fact that most of the arguments in Icons are standard ID arguments, it is hard to not label him as an IDer. JoshuaZ 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Wells is very fond of the word "design" (again see the earlier essay) which is further reason to call him an IDer. JoshuaZ 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, last such comment: here [3] and here [4] Wells seems to be fine self identifying as an IDer. I think that settles that matter. JoshuaZ 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the enlightenment. I was missunderstanding Mr. Wells's wording.Teckor 16:14 March 3, 2006

Disambiguation

A separate page for disambiguation is not necessary for one other name which can be noted as at the top of the page. Also this page is named as this persons common usage which is correct. Doc 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• An anonymous editor from a non-static IP keeps adding a disambig link to David Wells. That seems unnecessary to me and to the other editors that keep removing it. Perhaps this anon editor could explain here his reason for putting it in the article? Is there some link between the two Wellses that I'm not familiar with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaolson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 August 2006

Well, they do have the same last name and I always get them confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.10 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 September 2006

If you have trouble confusing two persons by the name last name of Wells, then I'm afraid you need more than DAB. Wells is a fairly common last name, it is not possible to link to everyone with that surname. Doc ♬ talk 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. listing all of these people would be absurd. eaolson 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited info on his opinions on AIDS

I just removed it. Here is the webpage that was given as a cite: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis His name was not on the list of signers, nor was it on the board of directors or anywhere else that I could find. The petition was only asking that a paper be published, although it seems reasonable to guess that the signers are AIDS revisionists. Steve Dufour 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? His name is right at the bottom of the list: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" [5] I'm restoring your deletion, and please be more careful next time, looking at your history, you seem to delete quite a lot of relevent information from your your fellow church members articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the list and did not see it anywhere. Was it removed? There are 3 other people with the name Wells. Besides that fact that he signed the letter (if he did) does not prove he is an AIDS revisionist, although he might well be for all I know (he also might have signed it as a favor to a friend or something like that). Steve Dufour 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I am a member of the Unification Church; as is Wells whom I have never met. I am not an AIDS revisionist, in this I am in the great majority among church members I know. I also believe that God used the principle of natural selection in the creation of life, including humans. In this I am probably in the minority of church members. Just for your information. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not looking hard enough. Look again, Wells is there: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" I'm restoring it yet again, and you need to stop removing properly cited content. FeloniousMonk 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Besides that fact that he signed the letter (if he did) does not prove he is an AIDS revisionist" Are you kidding me? Read what the page says.[6] Wells' HIV denial is well-known. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I missed it. You still need to find more documentation if he is notable for that, it seems to me. Steve Dufour 09:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems tome that the cite in question meets WP:V and WP:RS, thus it's fine as it is. •Jim62sch• 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, made a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard but I think that this article is well-sourced. I have however a small complaint about a sentence in the summary on ID and Hiv re-appraisal that classifies them both as unscientific. This sentences is I think inappropriate in a very specific article. Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects. Andries 18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mention it because Wells touts his science credentials while at the same time supports views that run counter to that of mainstream science. And not just fringe views, but views that the scientific community says are pseudoscience. That being so, the NPOV policy provision on dealing with pseudoscience and science, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, says specifically "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]What do you mean by "Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects"?

As for the pseudoscience cat & mention - Wells is an active proponent to two distinct pseudoscientific theories. Outside of that fact he is not notable. Guettarda 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I still have my doubts about the question whether it is okay to digress here on pseudoscientism, though I admit that your argument makes sense. I do not dispute that scientific POV should have majority space in the articles Intelligent Design and AID re-appraisal, but I doubt whether this is the place for it. In this article his POV should be described. What I mean with Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects is for example that an article on a communist should not digress on criticism of communism. Andries 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another example of my principle that Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects is that articles on a specific religion should not digress on general criticism or general advantages of religion. Andries 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point now. But as I see this, this is a matter of making a connection between commonalities. "He is known for X and Y. They are both a subset of Z." One could launch into a discussion on Chris Mooney's book at this point. That digression, while providing an interesting context, should not be developed in this article. Guettarda 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To Guettarda's point, please read this: [7] (PDF) FeloniousMonk 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia editors make a connection that the sources, as far as I can see, do not make? I admit that I have not read all the sources, but until now I have not seen him being described as engaged in two branches in pseudoscience. Andries 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that his believe in the two philosophies is well-sourced, and both the intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal pages say they are pseudoscience. So I don't see the problem. eaolson 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, but as I said, it is only a small matter. Andries 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that shows that he is notable for AIDS denial, or whatever its called. A name on a petition does not mean that you are a notable member of that field of thought. Gamaliel 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, [8] FeloniousMonk 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced. This seems to warrant inclusion. Might want to drop a note at WP:BLP/N with this too. Gamaliel 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

After checking out some of the links the facts given in the article seem to me to be pretty accurate. However I think it would be a much more effective article if its tone was a little more neutral. But that's just my opinion. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

more uncited info

I removed this:

Wells dropped out of his undergraduate geology course. In 1964 Wells was conscripted into the US Army and served for two years. In 1967 he was recalled as a reservist, but refused, was court-marshalled and jailed for a year and a half[7].

No citation was given for his dropping out of the geology class, if there is put it back in. A link to a NYT story was given for the information on his army record, however both Johathan and Wells are common names so there is no evidence given that these are the same person. Again if there is evidence put it back in the article if you like. Was he protesting against the Viet Nam war or what? Steve Dufour 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ. Did the NYT article say why he refused to serve? Did he say he was protesting the war? If that was the reason I think it should be mentioned in the article. Can I change "conscripted" to "drafted" which was by far the more common term used at that time? Steve Dufour 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and mentioned that 1967 was during the time of the Vietnam war. Some of the younger readers might not know that, or it might not come to mind. I have no way to know if he was protesting the war or was afraid to go over there or if he had some other reason altogether for refusing active service. Still I don't think there should be a problem with mentioning the fact that the war was going on. It might even make the article a little more interesting. Steve Dufour 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

my additions removed

I added this to the section on "Background":

Some time after this he joined the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon.... He has written extensively on Unification theology, and since 1981 has taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary.

I honestly don't see what the problem with this is that caused someone to remove it. Steve Dufour 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll try putting it back.Steve Dufour 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't see what's wrong with that either. No idea why it was removed. JoshuaZ 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I put it back in 2 days ago. •Jim62sch• 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it back again. I would think that the information on his church membership and activities would support the main theme of the article which, it seems to me, is that he is a religious crusader pretending to be a scientist. Steve Dufour 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see a theme to the article, but if there is one, that might be a cause for concern. On the other hand, it may be that a neutral presentation of the facts leads you to conclude that. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would "central idea" be better than "theme"? Steve Dufour 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"apemen"

This didn't sound very scientific so I changed it to "early humans". Would another expression be better? Steve Dufour 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole sentence:

"The drawing, by Rudy Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows the sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of apemen, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right."

I think it could be improved. At least "a sequence of primates" rather than "the sequence of primates". Steve Dufour 23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) - went ahead and changed that

OK -- because there are actually several series once one gets past the point where humans and chimps separated. •Jim62sch• 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also lots of sequences of primates which don't lead to humans at all.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give "human ancestors" a try as a replacement for "apemen". Steve Dufour 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with hominids. •Jim62sch• 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That works for me.  :-) Steve Dufour 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

I'm sure he was not born in 1956 if he was drafted into the army in 1964. My guess would be that he was born in 1946 and someone got one number wrong when they repeated it. Steve Dufour 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the NYT says he was 25 in 1968. That would make him born in 1942 0r 1943. I have added this to the article. Steve Dufour 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Creationist"

There is no discussion here of the apparently inappropriate label "creationist" for Wells. Critics may sometimes try to conflate the two in order to discredit ID, but my understanding is that ID people see the the two as very distinct. A Google search for the exact phrase "intelligent design is not creationism" returned over 500 pages. If no one makes a compelling argument in a timely manner that ID and creationism are identical, I will move the page. -Exucmember 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a reference, but one source asserts that Wells has identified himself as an old-earth creationist. While I agree that ID and creationism are not necessarily synonymous, there is some overlap. Justin Eiler 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. :)

However, in the article “Evolution by Design,” (1997), Wells describes his belief that the transitions between species have been designed by special creation and have not occurred by common descent, and that the ultimate purpose has been to build a suitable environment on Earth for the eventual creation of human beings. (Emphasis added)

Cite. Hope that helps. :) Justin Eiler 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by a "compelling argument". The article cites excellent sources, as do other ID-related sources. The fact that ID is creationism is well established. Why do you consider these references completely worthless? Guettarda 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. What do you think this is anyway? Science?  ;-) Steve Dufour 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is more about name-calling than providing biographical info. It would be better to label him an "evolution critic" or something like that. Roger 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the major editors of this article are thinking. It would be much more effective to just give the plain facts about him and trust the readers to make up their own minds. Steve Dufour 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? What about the article isn't "just giv[ing] the plain facts"? Guettarda 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance the 7 footnotes to the mention of ID being pseudoscience and the long story about him going to the hearings in Kansas. Steve Dufour 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reset)

Steve, the reason for the multiple footnotes on the pseudoscience mention is because pro-ID editors would come in and remove the statement--regardless of the fact that it's true. Every time they were chided for it, they said "Oh, you've only got one source or two sources." The multiple footnotes are to establish incontrovertable proof that mainstream science considers ID to be pseudoscience. Justin Eiler 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say that Wells has enemies who engage in childish name-calling, and let the reader check the references for himself? Roger 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, the folks who were removing cited information were supporters of Wells, not "enemies." Justin Eiler 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it is the enemies of Wells who put childish name-calling into the article about Wells. The article should be just a biography of Wells, not a bibliography on evolutionists who hate ID. Roger 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is not the only pseudo-scientist whose views are clearly called such. See Category:Pseudoscience for more. Justin Eiler 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which gives a gonzo feeling to their articles too. Steve Dufour 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the Pseudoscience page and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, you'll find some really silly discussions about what is or is not a pseudoscience. The editors cannot find a workable definition. Roger 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However it left out Marxist economic theory. Steve Dufour 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If I could bring the discussion back to the narrow topic of the article title, the suggestion that "evolution critic" describes Wells more accurately than "creationist" seems to have merit. Doesn't he write more along the lines of criticizing evolution than trying to promote intelligent design (which is not exactly the same as creationism anyway)? -Exucmember 06:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "creationist" you mean someone who believes the Bible accounts of creation literally he is certainly not one. Steve Dufour 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's "biblical literalist". Guettarda 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "creationist" merely mean that a person believes there is a God who created the Universe? Steve Dufour 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are any editors here of the honest opinion that Wells writings have more to do with promoting Creationism than criticizing Darwinism? Even if there are, the Creationism article makes it quite clear that the label normally means something quite different from what Wells believes. Thus the label is misleading in Wells' case. -Exucmember 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my first sentence above. I made a blanket request for "honest opinion[s]," a common phrase asking people to make a well-considered and completely neutral judgement. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "well-considered and completely neutral judgement" instead. Guettarda decided that he would assume bad faith, but also go well beyond this to claim that I made a personal attack, and then go one step further to delete my comment. (Apparently he thought my comment was so offensive that other users should be spared having to see it; I hope I have clarified that I did not mean anything at all critical of anyone, and have restored the sentence.) He also created a section on my Talk page entitled "Your personal attacks" (notice that he uses plural), and makes the out-of-context accusation: "Calling your fellow editors "dishonest" is totally unacceptable. Please desist." He also chides me on my Talk page with the admonition "assume good faith"! His statements on my Talk page are so misleading that, well, one might mistake them for a personal attack! -Exucmember 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For someone to ask for "honest opinons" can only mean that opinions to the contrary are dishonest. Thus, you called me (and other editors) dishonest. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. Your alternative "well-considered and completely neutral judgement" is no better, because you are calling me a non-neutral POV pusher. It's a massive failure to assume good faith, and a totally unwarranted personal attack. You said "I did not mean anything at all critical of anyone" and yet you (a) re-inserted your attack, and (b) added new ones. You then go on to call it a personal attack that I had the gall to point out to you that it is unacceptable for you to call me a dishonest POV-pusher. WP:NPA is Wikipedia policy. You are not free to ignore it. Guettarda 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No. No editors honestly believe that. This article is written for name-calling, not as an honest biography. Besides "creationist", it uses "pseudoscience", "low level of output", "denies the mainstream", etc. It ought to just describe his significant public positions, and leave out the inaccurate and unnecessary name-calling. Roger 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It also seems like the editors here don't trust people to think for themselves. Steve Dufour 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, who was being personally attacked by those comments? I was discussing the personal attacks against J. Wells in the article. If you are really opposed to personal attacks, then you should agree with me that some of the personal attacks on Wells should be removed. Roger 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger, your accusations of dishonesty against your fellow Wikipedia editors constitute a violation of our policy on personal attacks. Please read the policy. Guettarda 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty. Why would you say that? Okay, I think I see why you are saying that. I was just expressing my opinion on the inappropriate name-calling in the article. Roger 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that the no personal attacks policy refers to personal attacks on other editors, not the subject of the article. Properly sourced critical terms aren't in violation. eaolson 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let's try and assume a little good faith here people. "Honest Opinion" is a phrase that, at least where I live, gets used all the time and does not necessarily denote an assumption of dishonesty on the part of others. Calling that a personal attack is a bit of a stretch I think. I realize this is a touchy subject with strong opinions on both sides, but try to keep WP:COOL and not add a discussion of the semantics of a phrase to the argument.--Isotope23 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Honest opinion" is a very common phrase in my experience also. I explained my use of it. I didn't mean anything even in the slightest way critical. Ironically, it was just a gentle urging to come in from the polarization and be thoughtful and well-considered, so that we could arrive at a consensus that is best for the readers, that has the best chance of being fair, neutral, accurate, etc. I was quite surprised at the repeated and persistent assumption of bad faith, twisting of my meaning, and attributing things to me that I did not say. I also was accused even more virulently - not here, in context - but also on my personal Talk page, which certainly felt to me as though I were being attacked, and for no reason. -Exucmember 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to start a discussion which requested that people use a well-considered and completely neutral judgement to decide whether they think Wells' writings have more to do with promoting Creationism than criticizing Darwinism. Those editors who believe that this is objectively true after careful consideration and judgement from a neutral point of view should make there arguments here. I'm just asking for people to be fair and objective. I have very little stake here in what seems to be a very polarized debate, except to move the article toward a little more accuracy where I believe I noticed a deficiency. -Exucmember 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Might it make sense to move this to Jonathan Wells (anti-evolutionist or something similar, thus avoiding the issue? JoshuaZ 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is a leading proponent of intelligent design, a form of creationism. He isn't a critic of evolution outside of a very narrow creationist agenda. "Creationist" is far more common than "anti-evolutionist", which is a bit of a neologism. Descriptors should use simple and straightforward language. While "creationist", "anti-evolutionist" and "intelligent design proponent" are all accurate descriptors, "creationist" is concise and accurate, and unlike the alternatives is neither jargony nor a neologism. You move an article to a better title, not a worse one. Guettarda 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was made, and an implied "seconding" of the motion, that the article be moved to "Jonathan Wells (evolution critic)." Without commenting on that proposal the alternative "Jonathan Wells (anti-evolutionist)" was proposed and is being discussed, so I suppose both proposals are on the table. Personally, I think "evolution critic" is more accurate. Wells is not completely opposed to evolution; he accepts two of what he calls the three pillars of Darwinian evolution.

One reason that I believe "creationist" is inaccurate is that it usually means something to most people these days that simply does not accurately describe Wells' position.

Wikipedia's page on Creationism says:

In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of Christian fundamentalism in which the books of Genesis are held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth. It therefore conflicts with the more allegorical theological interpretations of the mainstream churches.

-Exucmember 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evolution critic" would be an poor title. Why not just call him "strawman critic", since he doesn't criticise evolution, he criticised strawmen which he calls evolutionary ideas. It's like someone pointing out well known flaws in Newtonian mechanics and saying that they are criticising physics. Guettarda 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The simple NPOV solution is to just call him a "biologist". He has a PhD in biology, and has written books and papers in biology. Some of those writings deviate from mainstreams views, but he is still a biologist. Roger 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You could also say "biologist and author" since it seems that he is best known for his writing. Steve Dufour 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are talking about the article title. The only reason his name doesn't stand on its own is that it needs to be disambiguated from other people named Jonathan Wells (at present, only one other). What appears in parentheses should be as concise as possible. He can be described as "biologist and author" in the first sentence. Wikpedia conventions for such naming are to call the subject what the subject himself would be called. "Biologist" is so obvious that I can't believe I didn't think of it myself. The article should be moved immediately. -Exucmember 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is he actually a practicing biologist? It seems to me he has a degree in biology, but his career is largely unrelated. WP identifies sports figures as such, even though they may have attended a college and received a degree in an unrelated field. He has a doctorate in religious studies as well, so why identify him as a "biologist" and not a "theologian?"

As for the "creationist" label being inaccurate because creationism is sometimes linked to a literal belief n Genesis, the intelligent design article says: "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God." Dover showed that ID is just creationism repackaged. eaolson 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states that he has published 3 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are not on the topic of creationism or ID but on biology. He has also published 3 books criticizing Darwinism. A critic's analysis of what ID "really" is is irrelevant. The disambiguation should be simple (not a veiled critique), and should describe the subject as he would describe himself. Such naming conventions also normally use his career designation, not a critic's view of his beliefs. "Biologist" is obviously correct. -Exucmember 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article name/disambiguous page should no necessarily describe a subject as they would describe themselves. I would argue that the subject's own opinion would not be an important factor in an naming convention because it is impossible for someone to be WP:NPOV about themselves. I'm not advocating one name over another here, but working from the reasoning that the subject's own views should somehow shape this debate is a very bad starting point.--Isotope23 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling Wells a biolgist after publishing three papers would be simply ridiculous. Many undergrads have more papers published than that. And the three books criticizing "Darwinism" is an argument for it to be as it is since criticising "Darwinism" is a crreationist thing (again, at best you could make this (anti-evolutionist) (which we have a few cites calling him)) rather than creationist. Also agree with Isotope that working off of what he calls himself is a non-starter. JoshuaZ 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say it was a non-starter. I asked him about this. He said it was his personal opinion that we don't have to honor what people call themselves. He also pointed me to the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which says:

• Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.

Then Isotope23 went on to say: "In the case of the Wells article it would be my opinion that 'biologist' would probably be a good middle ground based on his training." -Exucmember 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to me... I don't know anything about the guy. My opinion isn't especially informed in this case, though I would say that Jonathan Wells (author) is probably a very good WP:NPOV naming option.--Isotope23 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells isn't notable as an author, he is notable as an ID activist (his writing being a subset of this activism). Ed's page move, done without consensus (or even discussion, as far as I can tell) is not an improvement. We wouldn't have an article on Wells as an author if it were independent of his activism. I am undoing the page move done without consensus. Guettarda 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What has he done as an activist besides write the 3 books? Nothing else is mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason Wells is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is because he is an ID activist. Consequently, that should be the main focus of the article. He isn't a notable biologist, he isn't a notable "author" outside of his ID work, and he most certainly isn't a notable "biology writer" - he writes about ID, consequently he is a religious writer notable for his creationist acitivism. The article should reflect these well-supported positions, not some activist spin that deeks to obscure Wells' achievements. If his main notability were his contributions to biology, this article would have been deleted years ago. Guettarda 05:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jay Gould is not a notable biologist outside of his biology work. Please refrain from highly biased POV assertions. "Author" is NPOV, a compromise because of objections to "biologist." These disambig clarifiers always use the person's occupation, not what they believe, what philosophical school they belong to, or what they preach. He is an author on biology topics, including ID. You have a penchant for accusing others of what you are doing: "activist spin." Knock it off and start being civil! -Exucmember 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consenus for the page move. Wells is solely notable as an activist for creationism. He has won on accolades as an author. Guettarda 06:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if I were to agree with you, that would be irrelevant to the question of what is the most NPOV descriptor of what Wells' profession is. We are talking about the disambig clarifier. You blatantly lied before when you said I called you a POV pusher, but your actions now speak very loudly. They are screaming. Now I understand why Roger would exclaim that the page is for name-calling. Is that all you are interested in? If you continue to insist on keeping this article as an attack article with no sense of fairness or balance then perhaps Steve is right and it should be deleted. I simply can't believe you are acting this way. -Exucmember 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the label creationist is not considered descriptive. If he and others like him describe themselves as creationists (or the synonym IDist re: Dover trial revealing the shell game of replacing creationism with ID) why would this article not do the same? David D. (Talk) 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The view you cite is that of a critic. Feel free to represent critics' views in the article. Critics views are not appropriate as a substitute for a person's name in the title of a biolography article. -Exucmember 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the judge was neutral? He was a critic? David D. (Talk) 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Relative importance of subject?

I was just visiting the article on Luther Burbank, who also worked in the field of biology and was certainly more important than Dr. Wells (although he didn't have a PhD. :)). They have about the same size WP article. Steve Dufour 03:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Luther Burbank certainly had a tremendous impact on science, but only a minimal impact on social and political dialogue. Wells hass had a far greater impact on the social and religious dialog. Justin Eiler 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he would be glad to hear you say that.  :-) On the other hand Burbank's development of the Russet Burbank potato did have a certain social impact. Steve Dufour 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I said "social and political dialogue." The reason for Wells to have a proportionately larger article than his actual contribution to science is because his arguements are frequently quoted and cited in support of Intelligent Design, which is a very hot topic right now politically. HTH. Justin Eiler 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize he was so important. Steve Dufour 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He shakes a pretty big stick in the Creationist/Intelligent Design communities. Justin Eiler 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is not that important, but he has more enemies, and they cannot resist attacking him. Roger 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, they would be much more effective if they took a bit of the conspiracy gonzo jargon out of the article. I don't expect this to happen however.  :-) BTW Burbank had some critics too. Steve Dufour 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't happen. They are on an ideological mission to badmouth anyone who criticizes Evolution. Roger 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

At least Darwinists, unlike Marxists, don't shoot people. :-) Steve Dufour 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A reminder of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL would go around. Now if you have any substantial problems, instead of making ad hominem attacks why don't you explain what "conspiracy" elements are in the article that are not well sourced to reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is very well sourced. Steve Dufour 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so...JoshuaZ 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the way the article could be improved is to cut out the opinions and just give the basic facts about Wells. Steve Dufour 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, how are well-sourced notable opinions not relevant? How would this be an improvement? JoshuaZ 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you like you can check out Luther Burbank's article again. It gives the basic facts of his life and work, and mentions the criticism he received in just one short paragraph. It makes for an interesting article to read. Steve Dufour 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted statements of Wells' positions

The following statements of some of Wells' key positions were deleted from the article. The only rationale given was that they were "pointless." I think they should be reintegrated into the article:

• "Empirical science requires theories, somehow and at some point, to be compared with evidence. Prudence will dictate that theories long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of exaggerations and distortions evinces a desire to promote an idea regardless of the evidence, then it is our right, it is our duty, to criticize that idea as a philosophical doctrine rather than a scientific theory."

[9]

• "All the peppered moth pictures were staged ... Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks." [10]

• "As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design." (ibid)

-Exucmember 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is still some more pointless stuff that should be removed. What is the point of the comments on HIV/AIDS and the age of the Earth? Roger 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the discussion of the cover picture of one of his books, and that was put in by a supporter I think. :-) Steve Dufour 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. The grad student comment, the icons quote seem relevant. Of course the HIV stuff and the age of the earth stuff is relevant. I don't see the cover picture matter or his quote about what he thinks theories should cover are relevant. JoshuaZ 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will put the grad student comment back in the article then. Steve Dufour 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The specific points Wells makes against evolution can go in the Icons of Evolution article. They don't all need to be rehashed here. I favor the principle of once and only once, since I'm a software engineer and I don't like maintaining redundant material (it makes extra work). --Uncle Ed 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to take a stab at removing the stuff in the article which is not about Jonathan himself? Steve Dufour 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Year of Birth

The New York Times article which is cited about his army record says he was 25 years old in 1968. That would make him born in 1942 or 1943. If the person in the article is the same Jonathan Wells. Steve Dufour 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the whole army thing was removed. I thought it added some human interest to the story. Steve Dufour 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims about cancer

Should we include Wells claims about the nature of cancer discussed here? JoshuaZ 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a fellow is not notable

That kind of thing, a job or position in an organization, is not notable enough for WP. It can be mentioned in the article but if it is given in the first sentence as a reason he is notable then maybe he is not and the article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a fellow of the DI almost makes you notable by itself. Fellows of the DI are at the center of the ID movement and Well's presence as one of the mainstays of the ID movement has been precisely as one of the people at the helm of the DI. Almost any article about him his association with the DI for precisely those reasons. JoshuaZ 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be about the DI itself if Wells is only notable for his role in it. I think that would be WP policy. Steve Dufour 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I think the information should be included in the article, just not in the first sentence. Steve Dufour 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is notable as ID activist. His other achievements (jailed for refusing to go back to Vietnam, getting a PhD, his work at the Unificationist seminary), while noteworthy, do not constitute notability. The DI is the force behind ID. All of the major proponents of ID are associated with the DI. Regardless of the causal relationship, his association with the DI is a key component of this ID activism, which is the reason he is notable. So yes, it definitely belongs there. Guettarda 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Discovery Institute. Steve Dufour 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...there are also articles on Bohemian Grove and Area 51. (just kidding)  :-) Steve Dufour 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Discovery Institute article

He is not mentioned in the article on the Discovery Institute at all. Why is that if his membership in it is so important? Steve Dufour 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Opponents of Intelligent Design point out that all (or nearly all) ID supporters are affiliated with the D.I.

I guess they are implying that there is no grass roots movement, but merely a campaign by one partisan organization.

Anyway, here at Wikipedia, there is a dedicated crew of a dozen or more contributors who combine to present ID in a bad light, and the materialist view of evolution in a good light.

Don't get too wrapped up in it, Steve. There are plenty of other topics to write about. --Uncle Ed 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Good advice.  ;-) Steve Dufour 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. Good work, the article reads much better now.

Army record removed

The New York Times story which is referenced dates from 1968 and is about a man who was 25 at that time, 64 today. Is there any reason to think this is the same Jonathan Wells? If there is evidence for this please put the paragraph back. It does add a little human interest to the article, as I said. Steve Dufour 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells told me he spent time in the brig for draft evasion, when I first met him two dozen years ago. Like me, he's a bit of a rebel. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link from Wells himself: http://www.darwinismandid.com/then/index.php Guettarda 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a great source and clears up some other points in the article. Steve Dufour 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Biology author"

I don't see how the descriptor "biology author" can really be applied to Wells. If he is notable as an author, it is for his ID work, not his biology work. Biology is the science of life. ID has been well established as being non-science. "Fiction, with animals", or "theology with animals" are possible descriptors for his writing (note: I am not implying that theology is fiction, but rather that Wells' books are a mixture of the two). But "biology"? No. Guettarda 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An author is a person who writes books. One of Wells's books has its own article. So it seems to me that if he is notable it is as an author. Steve Dufour 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was about "biology".Guettarda 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just "author" is fine with me. It seems like he is most notable for the books he has written. Steve Dufour 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is the author of several articles on biology that are not related to ID. Darwin has to do with biology last time I checked. Wells writes about biology.

Critics would like to pin the name "Creationist" on him. Most people associate this with "Creation Science," as is clearly stated in the Creationism article. Wells does not believe in Creation Science. If anyone wants to make a case for Wells being a Creationist, please do so in a criticism section, not in the introduction. -Exucmember 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he work for DI? Why are his biology articles relevant in that context? In the same vain why are Sarfati's chemistry articles relevant to his work with AiG? For reference the Sarfati article describes him as a "Australian writer and researcher". David D. (Talk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he a "biology writer"?

Can we get a consensus on this? Author is a far more NPOV term in my opinion. How are we going to describe him in the first sentence? JoshuaZ 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "author" as well. No one can deny that he has written some books. If his books are really "about" biology seems to be a matter of some contention. Steve Dufour 19:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there really some contention about whether his books are about biology? One book is a collection of criticisms of how evolutionary biology is presented in biology textbooks. I don't see how anyone can claim that the book is not about biology. Roger 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I gotta side with JoshuaZ on this one. We all agree that (1) he is an author and (2) that there is nothing POV about calling him an author.

What he's writing about might be a bit harder to describe, but let's try process of elimination: he's not an author of biology textbooks. Does that help? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To me "biology writer" gives the picture of someone who has written biology textbooks or maybe articles about plants and animals for science and nature magazines. It wouldn't be wrong to say that Wells is a biology writer, but doesn't he write more on philosophical questions rather than on biological subjects themselves? Steve Dufour 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To call him a "biology writer" suggests that he writes about biology. Is there any evidence that he does so? You can't call pseudoscience science. You can't call an astrologer and astronomer, even though they write about stars. Guettarda 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has addressed the issue I raised above about his other writings that were on biology that had nothing to do with ID (or philosophy). I said: "Wells is the author of several articles on biology that are not related to ID. Darwin has to do with biology last time I checked. Wells writes about biology."

Steve raises a good point about the picture created by certain terms. We should be aware of that when considering alternatives. It would be nice if people considered this angle when thinking about "creationist." I don't think it's accurate, however, to say that he writes on philosophical questions rather than on biological subjects themselves. -Exucmember 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if he's a biology writer or a scientist or just an ax-grinding hack. Just tell me what the standards are.

If a man with a Ph.D. in biology gets 3 peer-reviewed papers on biology published in scientific journals, what does that make him? What if he ran a lab of some sort? Is he a former scientist, a retired biologist, a "disgraced former biologists who broke ranks and defecting to the dark side"? ;-) --Uncle Ed 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually only one of those publications really counts, since it's the only one he's lead author on, and that was over 20 years ago. It's actually remarkably low output, since you should be able to get 3-5 papers out of the average dissertation, and in molecular biology it's easy to contribute enough to someone else's project to get coauthorship (especially when it's third author or worse). A degree in a science does not make you a scientist - working as a scientist makes you a scientist - doing and publishing research. He is a biologist by training, but without pubs or any evidence that he is active in the field, it's hard to call him a "biologist". Guettarda 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He is noted for the books he wrote. Steve Dufour 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda here. As I pointed out earlier, many undergrads have 3 or 5 papers. That doesn't make them biologists. JoshuaZ 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Creationism/ID aside, I just don't understand how Wells has a PhD. Three papers, only one of which has him as first author. Of that first author paper, it's been cited three times, by Wells, himself. In 22 years, it's never been cited by anyone else. (But this isn't really relevant to the article.) eaolson 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If an undergrad has 3 published papers in biology, then I'd say that he qualifies as a biologist. If he then gets a PhD in biology, then nearly everyone would say that he qualifies as a biologist. Roger 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• William "Refrigerator" Perry went to Clemson University and got a degree in therapeutic recreation (whatever that is). Yes, his WP article is at William Perry (American football). While Wells may have a degree in biology, he is not a practicing biologist. But, frankly, after the move to "Corrigan," this discussion just seems moot. eaolson 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Roger agrees, but I am among those who compromised on calling him a biologist in exchange for the obviously POV misleading labelling of him as a creationist.

So the question for me is not whether he can be called a "biologist," it is whether he can be called a "biology writer" (or something to that effect). I haven't heard anone disagree that he is a writer. What does he write about? Biology. -Exucmember 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perry has distinguished himself by playing football, not by writing books and papers on therapeutic recreation. Wells has distinguished himself by writing books on biology. Roger 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wells has written books criticising evolution, not books on biology. There is a huge difference. Dawkins wrote a book criticising religious belief, but no one is trying to label him a theologian (at least not the last time I checked, pehaps I should keep a close eye on that talk page?). KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have to agree with the "critics". Calling him a "biology writer" makes it sound like he should be considered an authority on biology. Fans and critics of Wells disagree sharply on this. In fact, as Guettarda points out, Wells got the degree not to be an academic scientist, but to "defeat Darwinism". So to be neutral, we can say:

1. He is an author; because he has a well-known book out.
2. He has a Ph.D. degree in biology; because no one disputes this.

Disputed points:

1. that he is a scientist: Wells says so, others disagre
2. that he is a "biologist": if this means he is a scientist working in the field of biology, then it depends on whether he's a scientist
3. that he is a "biology writer": this seems to mean he's an authoritative source of information on biology, see Category:Science writers

I suggest we stick with what is beyond dispute, in the beginning of the article. Later on, like at the end, we can describe any controversies about his qualifications or expertise. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very nice summary from Ed here. i mentioned above that the Sarfati's article describes him as a "writer and researcher". This seems to be a way out that could satisfy both sides. The reader can determine from the article the nature of his research. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have a problem with describing anyone as a "researcher". Just about very human who has ever lived researched, that is tried to find out new information, but almost no one has ever been notable for just that. Steve Dufour 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with what Ed is saying. Just to clarify the reason I raised this point - article currently starts out by calling him a "biology writer". To start with that statement implies that he is most notable as a writer on biological topics. Wells is most notable as a proponent of intelligent design - regardless of whether you want to call him a writer, activist, or theologian...he writes with an admitted agenda and is a proponent of intelligent design. The notable (and undisputed, I hope) points, as I see them are

1. Wells is notable for his ID-related work (proponent of ID, ISCID fellow)
2. Wells has two PhDs - one in biology, the other in theology
3. He has written several books (and other essays) with the purpose of "defeating Darwinism"
4. He is not just an evolution opponent, but also a HIV opponent (useful for context, he isn't just at odds with the scientific establishment on one issue, but two)

Disputed points

1. Whether he is a scientist - he says so, but most working definitions of scientist disagree (with biologist being the obvious subset of scientist...though, of course, molecular biology isn't real biology, it's glorified chemistry)
2. Whether to consider him a biology writer (I take it that there are sources that assert that he is one?)

Guettarda 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced "biology writer" with "author". I hope that is o.k. Steve Dufour 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what Guettarda says above. I don't think that it is true that "Wells is most notable as a proponent of intelligent design". His best-known book is Icons of Evolution, which is a criticism of biology textbooks, and has little if anything to say about ID.

I also doubt that Wells's wrote his books for the "purpose of defeating Darwinism". I am not a mindreader, and we don't know his purposes.

It is also wrong to say that Wells is an "HIV opponent". All we know is that he signed a statement calling for the "thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence".

This article is just a smear attack on Wells from beginning to end. I think that the whole article should be scrapped and rewritten by someone without an ideological axe to grind against him. Roger 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find someone who is interested. :-) If you took out every sentence in which Jonathan is not the subject the article would be much improved. I'd give it a try but I know it would make people upset. Steve Dufour 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not do it in your own user domain (User:Steve Dufour/sandbox)and ask for comment? David D. (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. I will give it a try. Steve Dufour 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just finished it. Check it out if you like. Steve Dufour 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, Icons is part of his ID work and in any event, what evidence do you have that he is best known for that? As to the defeating Darwinism- he has said so, read the quote about why he got his PhD. Finally, as to the HIV oppopne, calling for ""thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for X" is precisely what many groups do when they think ~X but want to seem more "open minded" (hence all the fun with teaching the controversy and similar statements). JoshuaZ 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, I have to agree strongly with you about defeating Darwinism. Wells is clearly a man on a mission. "As a student at Unification Theological Seminary north of New York City, I became interested in yet another controversy -- the one over Darwinian evolution -- and I spent all my spare time reading books and journals at the Columbia University biology library." Let me tell you, when a grad student spends all his spare time reading, it must be something he's hot and bothered about. Why wasn't at the local bar, chasing girls, huh?

Roger, I'm on your side on the issues, but when I'm at this website, I got to toe the line. And Joshua is right on this point. Why not work on something else for a while? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

No, Joshua is wrong about this. If a politician says that he wants a reappraisal of our mission in Iraq, that could be a code phrase for a pacifist surrender. Or it could mean exactly what it says. Do you go around to the WP entries for politicians who say they want a reappraisal, and insert statements that they are trying to surrender American interests? That would be wrong. Just give the quote and let the reader decide it means.

It is fine to quote what Wells says about AIDS or his mission in life. My objection is to the dubious inferences that he really meant something other that what he said.

Ed Poor, if you really wrote this, I've noticed that a gang of evolutionists has succeeded in punishing you for trying to bring balance to some of these pages. That is too bad. I hope that you are still able to contribute, as I think that you were doing good work. Yes, I realize that this article is going to be biased attack on Wells no matter what I say. Just look at the insistence on name-calling with terms like "creationist", even tho the term is inaccurate. Roger 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How, precisely, is the term inaccurate? •Jim62sch• 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than editing the article...

...I followed David D.'s advice and tried out the changes I had been suggesting in my sandbox. Please let me know what you think. User:Steve Dufour/sandbox Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes to make it more neutral. I am no expert on him, and I have no idea whether some of the stuff is true or not. The stuff about someone having debated him and disagreed with him is just too silly to mention. Sure, debate opponents disagree; they are supposed to. Signing an AIDS petition is so minor that it needs only the simplest mention. I also found this unnecessary and false:

He rejects the predominant scientific views of both evolution and that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

I am not sure he rejects either of these. The references just don't show it. Roger 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that those who are not aware that Darwinism is a real term might want to take a minor role in editing this article, rather focusing their attention on articles which involve core topics about which they are more knowledgeable. -Exucmember 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean in the modern context of biology? Is Wells criticising Darwin or evolution? Here it appears to be used in the context of evolution but this does not sound correct. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the claim that Wells rejects evolution; perhaps better references are in order to support this part of the assertion as stated. On the AIDS question, I doubt that an adequate reference can be provided to back up the claim, but I'd be happy to see one if someone can find it. (If not, the claim in the introduction should be removed or significantly modified.) -Exucmember 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What Wells really objects to

• According to several Gallup polls, only about ten percent of the American people believe in Darwin's theory that we are accidental by-products of a strictly natural process of evolution. The other ninety percent believe that God played an important role in the process--either by guiding evolution or by creating life directly. [11]

Wells has framed "Darwin's theory" as asserting:

• that human beings are an accidental by-product
• that evolution is a strictly natural process

Defenders of evolution frame their position like this:

• We're not saying the process is strictly naturalistic
• We're just restrictiong ourselves to examining natural causes

This is apparently a "proxy fight" over whether science ought to confine itself to the physical world and physical causes; or should have an expanded scope which is willing to examine the supernatural. Talk:Intelligent_design recently had something about the desire of ID advocates to have science accept the possibility that a supernatural cause may have been involved in evolution. --Uncle Ed 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec): I was objecting to a blanket statement that Wells rejects evolution, when he appears to accept at least some of evolution as it is defined in WP. Roger 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I put a {fact} tag on that assertion. [12] --Uncle Ed 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. However if you could scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, it seems to me Steve Dufour 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain how not? Guettarda 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed's edit is an improvement, but I would omit the whole sentence about pseudoscience. Yes, Wells signed a petition for AIDS reappraisal, and some AIDS reappraisal proposals are considered by some to be pseudoscience, but there is no source that says that Wells's position on AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience. The sentence is just an attempt to blame Wells for what someone else has said. Roger 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, care to explain why you are removing cited material, and claiming it is cited? There are two supporting citations on the HIV thing. As for the issue that Wells rejects the predominant scientific view of evolution...how not? Did you miss those two books Wells wrote in which he rejected the predominant views on evolution? Did you miss the whole article? Guettarda 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He does not "reject" evolution itself, or so it seems. Nor is there evidence that he "rejects" the idea that HIV causes AIDS, although he might well do that -- on the other hand he might have just signed the letter as a favor to his friend. WP policy requires that potentially negative material on a living person be removed. When Ed and Roger made their comments above I realized that that was what this sentence is. I protested against the AIDS thing before but let it pass after a while since that his views on AIDS are a minor point, evolution is the main thing. Steve Dufour 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence says that he rejects "the predominant scientific views of Darwinian evolution". How is that uncited? How is that not accurate? As for the HIV statement - it's referenced. It's false to claim it isn't. Guettarda 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about him "rejecting" anything. Steve Dufour 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed "rejects" to "disagrees with" and left the AIDS info at the bottom of the article. Steve Dufour 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a problem with the word "reject". Steve Dufour 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no supporting cite for the HIV thing. The cites say that some AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience, but not what Wells signed. As for evolution, show me where Wells has ever disagred with the theory that "some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation." Roger 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that further sources have been added for the HIV matter. I think it makes things clear. JoshuaZ 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cites make it clear that you cannot support what the article actually says. One opinion article only says, "ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." This is just unreliable name-calling. Roger 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On "disputes," "rejects," "disagrees with," "denies," I have to agree with Guettarda's last edit and not Ed's. To me, one "denies" facts or things that are simple and objectively true. This doesn't fit a scientific theory, which is always subject to revision. I don't have a problem with the alternatives, including "rejects," but agree that it's best to use the word in the citation.

On the question of whether he rejects evolution, if it's clear we're talking about the Darwinian version of evolution, the following quotation from Wells certainly seems to say that he rejects that: "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence." It's a short jump from there to say that he rejects the prevailing scientific view. -Exucmember 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to take those short jumps from what Wells actually says, to how you might like to characterize his views. Just say, "Wells argued that Darwinian theory conflicts with the evidence and he called for an AIDS reappraisal." Then you have clear support. As it is, those short jumps are inaccurate and slanderous. Roger 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri) So, Ex, what is non-Darwinian evolution? Why the need for the adjective? Has Well proposed his own form of evolution?

Also, he does not dispute the accuracy of evolution, he denies that it is accurate.

Rog, where do you see slander? •Jim62sch• 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the meaning of these terms. If you want to accurately describe Wells's beliefs, then use his terminology. Roger 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't use the term "papists" when talking about Catholics, or use obviously unacceptable terms in articles about groups that preach racial superiority, even if those groups themselves use those terms exclusively. eaolson 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is not the place to debate the meaning of these terms." Uh, yeah. •Jim62sch• 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

the NNDB

• "NNDB:Jonathan Wells". NNDB. 2006.

This is one of the external links. It doesn't seem to me to be a very reliable source of information. A few weeks ago I e-mailed them to tell them that they have Jonathan's birth date wrong. He couldn't have been born in 1956 if he was drafted into the Army in 1964. The wrong date is still in their article. Steve Dufour 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Wikipedia policy is to consider nndb to be unreliable in general. JoshuaZ 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from this article then. It doesn't give any additional information anyway. Steve Dufour 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Problematic content

In an essay posted to the tparents.org website, Wells wrote:

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978 [in Religious Studies], I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

Wells' statement has been used many times by scientists to highlight his motivation and question his objectivity. The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion".

About his studies at Yale, Wells said:

"As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design."

---

Non sequitur because discovery.org doc does not mention doc at tparents.org but 'Icons of Evolution. Section needs a re-write. CyberAnth 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think both quotes should stay. If you took the opinions of the unnamed "scientists" out and let the readers make up their own minds that would solve the problem. Steve Dufour 08:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - the above simply is incorrect per the sources and needs to be re-worked.

• "Wells' statement [at tparents.org] has been used many times by scientists to highlight his motivation and question his objectivity." - this is supported in discovery.org. However, the article text is set up as though the discovery.org article is a defense "in response" of subject's tparents.org article. It is not but a defense of his views in his book mentioned in the article. So this section needs re-working to mesh with the sources.

It is simply inaccurate use of the sources - the sources can stay but they are not used rightly here. Is that clearer now?

CyberAnth 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides I think real scientists would be too busy with their own work to spend their time "using" people's statements to "highlight" their motivations and "question" their objectivity. Steve Dufour 09:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try putting the quotes back without the opinions. Steve Dufour 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess people like opinions. :-) Steve Dufour 09:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please believe me, it had nothing to so with my opinions but what appeared to me as a section written in a confusing way. Personally, I basically agree with Wells' positions on Darwinism and maintain that most Darwinsists' views are every bit as "religious" as Wells'. I went ahead and re-wrote the section and I hope others deem it as improved. BTW, as far as some BLPs on WP are concerned, this article was stellar before I even arrived, so please take some encouragement.  :-) Also, I agree that "denies" is too strong for his views on Darwinism and "disagrees" is more accurate. Perhaps "disagrees with prevailing Darwinian views" is even more accurate. I personally think no person in their right mind rejects Darwinism in total. CyberAnth 09:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to your opinions but just trying to make the point that the article would be much better with just the facts about Wells without the opinions of third parties. Steve Dufour 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still as confused now as I was when Cyberanth first complained about this paragraph. S/he says: "Wells' statement [at tparents.org] has been used many times by scientists to highlight his motivation and question his objectivity." - this is supported in discovery.org. However, the article text is set up as though the discovery.org article is a defense "in response" of subject's tparents.org article. The sentence said "This was used to criticise Wells objectivity; the DI has responded by calling the comments religious attacks. Obviously the response sentence refers to the sentence immediately preceding it - the one about scientists criticising Wells. Since the sentence relates to the one about scientists, and not to the one from tparents, why does it matter whether the DI quote says anything about tparents? I still have no idea what Cyber is talking about. Guettarda 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to just print Wells's statement verbatim and let the readers decide for themselves about his motivation and objectivity. Steve Dufour 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution to what? Why is it a problem that the DI statement does not reference the tparents post, when it was not made in response to the tparents post? Guettarda 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would violate WP:NPOV by promoting a particular viewpoint, and one that is an extremely small minority and partisan to boot. FeloniousMonk 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make the article much more interesting if the focus was on Wells himself, what he has done and why he is doing it. Steve Dufour 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Names Database

So what's the real problem with having a link to the Notable Names Database in the External Links section? This common at Wikipedia, and NNDB not being offered as a reliable source supporting article content, so the justification for deleting it [13] is specious. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be high quality. I already mentioned how they are saying he was born in 1956 when he was drafted into the army in 1964. How can we trust anything it says? Steve Dufour 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues with CyberAnth's version

CyberAnth's version has major, obvious NPOV issues, misrepresenting and grossly under-representing the scientific community's position and its reception of Wells' claims, the yet his reversion's edit summary [14] implies that WP:BLP trumps WP:NPOV, which it does not. In this section we can go through each of the points of contention in CyberAnth's version if he'd like. FeloniousMonk 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Under-representing the scientific community?! This is an article about Wells, not the scientific community. You as might as well complain that it under-represents the Moonie community, or the intelligent design community, or the Catholic community, or the theology community. This article should not be a soapbox for FM's peculiar views on pseudoscience. Roger 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in a BLP means we do not explain the subject's views from the persepctive of the subject's crtics - as your version does, which reads like a slugfest. CyberAnth 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, you're both wrong. WP:NPOV says "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience clearly says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, kicking this off, this is my first pass, only covering the intro, at the most obvious NPOV issues with CyberAnth's version:

• "John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells, Ph.D., is an author, a prominent promoter of intelligent design, and a critic of Darwinism." --The use of "Darwinism" is not neutral; it repeats the rhetoric of every prominent ID proponent. ID proponents intentional use Darwinism as an ambiguous throw-away term as a rhetorical device to further their arguments. [15] The term "Darwinism" is never used in the same manner by the scientific community. What ID proponents actually object to when they say "Darwinism" is evolution. [16][17]

• "In Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, argued that Darwinian theory conflicts with the evidence and critiqued the presentation of evolution in public education in American schools." --Again use of "Darwinian theory" simply repeats the minority viewpoint's rhetoric. And "critiqued the presentation of evolution" soft-peddles the point, Well's strongly challenges the current presentation of evolution in public school science classes, as seen in his "Icons of Evolution."

• "He disagrees with the predominant scientific view of evolution and has signed a petition questioning the prevailing hypothesis that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." --This creates an undue weight issue and a misleading impression. Wells doesn't just disagree with the concept of evolution endorsed by the scientific community, he rejects it entirely as seen in his book "Icons of Evolution."[18] And he hasn't just "signed a petition questioning the prevailing hypothesis that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)"; he endorsed a statement submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.

That covers the intro, I'll wait for responses before moving on to the following sections. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The BLP vs. NPOV issue isn't relevant- everything in FM's version is well sourced so there isn't a BLP issue. JoshuaZ 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like FM's more extreme version. It gives the article an "attitude", which makes Wells seem more interesting. Steve Dufour 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it extreme, or is it accurate? I go for the latter. "Darwinian" is used by Creationists and IDists (same thing really), the way "Communist" was used during the Cold War.

As for the remainder, I pointed out yesterday that Wells' statements show using terms like "disagree" to be dishonest. •Jim62sch• 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is wrong on all counts. He says that the scientific community never uses the term "Darwinism", but they have in fact used that term for 100 years. Here is an interview in which Richard Dawkins uses the term. [[19]]

The book "Icons of Evolution" is primarily a critique of biology textbooks, not public school science classes.

The only source on Wells and AIDS is the petition he signed. [[20]] That's all. Some of those signers did get a letter published in Science magazine, but Wells did not sign that letter. [[21]] : The changes advocated by FeloniousMonk, JoshuaZ, and other evolutionists put words in Wells's mouth that he did not say. This article is not a platform for bashing creationists. It is just about Wells. Roger 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Schlafly, but there's more than one source given in the article pal, and those sources support the current language on AIDS very clearly: [22][23] You also misrepresented the majority viewpoint when you changed "Both intelligent design and AIDS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

If all we know about Wells and AIDs is that he signed a petition "questioning" it, then that's all we should say on this point. I know a prominent Unificationist (a "central figure", in fact) who goes beyond questioning to outright denial. I'd name him here, except that my only source is personal communication.

I don't know why Wells attracts so much attention. Perhaps some of it is anger at his exposing textbook flaws. The peppered moth thing and the embryo drawing errors should be corrected, at least.

But if political anti-ID forces regard him as a target, then we should report the fact that they have targeted him. Say, for example that Eugenie Scott called him an X, or criticized him for promoting Y or saying Z.

To be neutral, the article shouldn't say Wells is an X or did Y, but rather that Scott states this. Scott is an interested party in an ongoing political controversy. --Uncle Ed 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The current language on AIDS is just not supported by the cites. I changed it to "He also proposed a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS." JoshuaZ changed it back.

If Wells is still a member of Moon's Church, he may well have a number of personal views that are out of the mainstream. This is not an article for ridiculing every minor opinion he has. Wells is known for his writings about Darwinism. The article should stick to that. It should also be based on what he actually wrong, not what Eugenie Scott says that he secretly thinks. Roger 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're misrepresenting the sources. There's more than one given in the article, and the current language on AIDS is indeed supported by these cites: [24][25] You also misrepresented the majority viewpoint when you changed "Both intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." to "Both intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal are considered controversial." which grossly underplays and misrepresents what the sources given say: [26][27]. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, FeloniousMonk, you have no support from any reliable sources. The first just cites Wikipedia as its only source for Wells having "support for AIDS reappraisal". The second is just a polemic that says, "Moonie Jonathan Wells [has] joined the AIDS denialist camp." It gives no source. Someone who calls Wells a "Moonie" is not a neutral source. Why do you insist on citing the imprecise polemics of people who hate Wells, as opposed to what Wells himself says?

The third is a law article on creationism. The fourth is a teachers' press release expressing disagreement with Pres. Bush. I don't know what the point of these articles is. Are you trying to say that ID is not controversial because some teachers disagree with Pres. Bush and so the teachers must be right and Bush must be wrong? If a teachers organization disagrees with the president of the USA, then that is proof that there is a controversy. Roger 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Feh. Both Seattlest and the Vancouver Sun meet the terms of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for reliable sources. Hence so does their articles: [28][29] You should consider reading it and our core content policies, WP:V and WP:NPOV sometime soon if you want to contribute meaningfully to the project, beyond constantly tossing out spitballs to see which ones might stick. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are the wrong one to be lecturing me on WP:V and WP:NPOV. Most of your edits (that I have witnessed) have been false and malicious attacks on living people. Even when presented with primary sources showing that your edits are false, you fall back on citing name-calling unreliable polemical opinions. You obviously hate J.Wells and will say anything to make him look bad, whether it is true or false. Roger 09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to add WP:NPA to your reading list too. Until you demonstrate you know and follow our policies, you'll find that not many will take your objections seriously. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I know the WP policies, and I follow them. I have also observed your policies. I am trying to make this article on Wells more neutral. Can you please explain why you are against describing Wells's opinion on AIDS in terms of what Wells actually said about AIDS? Instead you misinterpret someone else's statement who has apparently misinterpreted Wells. Roger 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, about your method of participation here, looking over your comments here and elsewhere, it is clear that you either are unacquainted with our policies and guidelines governing content and behavior, or willfully ignoring them. Assuming good faith, I've went with the former, but if you still insist that it's the latter, I'll take your word for it. Either way, it's becoming disruptive and incivil and needs to end.

As for your question, if you were indeed as up to speed on our guidelines and policies as you'd like everyone here to believe, then you'd know from WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. We have 3 secondary sources that support the existing content, and 1 primary (and very partisan) source. "He also rejects the prevailing view of the scientific community that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." accurately summarizes the three secondary sources, while your version, "He also proposed a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS." merely repeats the rhetoric of the partisan primary source, in effect giving that fringe viewpoint undue weight, in turn running afoul of WP:NPOV. Have I made this clear enough for you? FeloniousMonk 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary source is the only known statement on AIDS from Wells. It is a petition that said, "We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group." Wells signed it. No secondary source cites anything else.

Of your 3 secondary sources, one just cites Wikipedia, one just cites the petition, and one is a rant that calls Wells a "Moonie" and gives no source. None of these say that Wells rejected any prevailing view or that Wells's view on AIDS is pseudoscience.

An article about Wells should describe his views accurately, even if FeloniousMonk thinks that Wells has fringe views. Roger 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we are talking about the same sources here, right? References 8, 9, and 10 in the article? Reference 8 is an article published by SeattleEst, reference 9 is to an article published by the Vancouver Sun, and reference 10 an article publsihed by the Washington University Law Quarterly. As explained to you before, these all meet the requirements as reliable sources set forth in our policy governing sources, WP:RS and there is no provision in WP:NOR requiring that secondary sources list their sources. But there is a requirement that: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." FeloniousMonk 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now Rog, surely Mommy taught you about the semantics games played by the right-wing-bible-thumping-creationist-pig-ignorant Philistines: reappraisal is as honest a term in this case as "regime change" was in the case of Iraq. Wells seeks no real reappraisal, other than to redefine the causes of AIDS in the same way he has tried to redefine creationism as science. Besides, my dear boy, how seriously can one take the words of someone who refers to his blog as the "Information Awareness Office" that is devoted to "Debunking the Judicial Supremacists and the Leftist Evolutionists". You're a funny guy, Rog, funny guy. •Jim62sch• 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never read any of Wells's books so I couldn't express an opinion on how honest or dis-honest he is in them. Steve Dufour 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to explain the title of the book?

A shot of the cover of Wells's book has been added to the article. Do we still need to explain the picture in the article? Steve Dufour 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try taking it out. If anyone thinks it should be in the article please put it back. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the book cover is fair use, it's far easier to justify its use if we describe the cover (as opposed to just the book). Removing the description is a bad idea. Guettarda 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem then. I was not aware of that issue at all. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unification Church position on evolution

I was a Unification Church member for more than 20 years, and graduated with an accredited degree from the Unification Theological Seminary. I left the church about 10 years ago, no longer having any confidence that it can ever reform sufficiently to become a net positive. I have no desire to promote it. I have exposed some of its dark side in articles on Wikipedia related to the Unification Church. But I also have opposed the exaggerated and inaccurate claims of critics (and baseless, outright attacks) when I have seen them.

The Unification Church takes no position on evolution. The article should not say it does. Members' views vary, but it is not an important topic within the Unification Church. The typical member would say something like evolution is an accurate description of the development of life if you look on the surface, but at a subtle level beyond the reach of today's science the hand of God was working somehow to guide it. Most would say that the mechanism is through natural processes. Very few members take a position like Wells or the unnamed Japanese member in the citation, and any members who take a young earth position (I never met any) would be in clear doctrinal conflict with Unification Church teachings.

In the citation provided to support the contention that the Unification Church opposes evolution, Sun Myung Moon says, among other statements that seem to oppose evolution, "I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it." Why not just say something everyone can agree on, like "Sun Myung Moon opposes the view that life on earth evolved without the guiding hand of God."? -Exucmember 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is supported by citations. If you have citations which support your version, please add them. If you don't have citations which support your version, then don't change the article. Please consult WP:V. Guettarda 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The citations provided do not support the claim in the article. -Exucmember 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article says church opposes evolution. References say church opposes evolution. Been discussed higher up the page. Guettarda 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that is the Unification Church does not have a policy about evolution and does very little concerning it one way or the other. What should be the standard to say that a group "opposes" something anyway? Could it be said that because one member of an organization of thousands does something that makes it the action of the whole organization? Or is the fact that it might have paid for one person's education 20 years ago evidence of organizational opposition? Steve Dufour 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's your source for the fact the Unification Church does not have a policy about evolution? Are we just supposed to take your word for it as UC member? Scout's honor and all that? 151.151.21.103 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the cites given Wells himself said "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism" So Wells himself lends support to the idea that Moon is not fond of evolution. So Wells seems to agree with the editors here that Moon (aka Unification Church) is opposed to evolution. I mean according to Wells, Moons words contributed to him devoting his life to destroying Darwinism. Mr Christopher 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that Jonathan is the only church member, out of hundreds of thousands around the world, who seems to be following this policy? Steve Dufour 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The source has Moon saying, "I don't deny the process of evolution in development". That means that it is false to say that Moon is against evolution. Roger 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote-mining now? You took half a sentence out of context and twist its meaning? Moon said

I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it. In the theory of evolution there are sudden occurrences called mutations, in which something new comes from its parent body. But we have to say that there must have been some energy or willpower that authorized that occurrence. Could evolution itself create a new awareness and make a new design? Absolutely not.

How is that anything other than a rejection of evolution? Guettarda 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not put that quote in the article then? Steve Dufour 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty tangential to this subject of this article. I could see adding it to the article on the Unification Church, but here, it wouldn't really add much. eaolson 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wells himself said that Rev. Moon's words were part of his motivation for doing what he is doing. Steve Dufour 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What, use a primary source? Are you suggesting that a WP article on Wells use his own writings as descriptive of his position? Some editors here are dead-set against that sort of thing. They say that Wells cannot be trusted, and they'd cite the rumor-mongering of a left-wing blogger. They wouldn't want to use Rev. Moon's actual words either. Roger 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the four citations given to support the contention that the Unification Church opposes evolution, none match the claim accurately.

The third one [22] is laughable - one single unnamed Japanese member claiming guidance from a church philosophy writer. Not RS and should be deleted immediately.

The fourth [23] is sloppy with facts I'm sorry to say, but does not say that the Unification Church opposes evolution, claiming only that Rev. Moon wanted Wells to destroy Darwinism, something the author apparently assumes with no basis.

The first one [20] probably comes closest, Rev. Moon explaining a nuanced version very similar to the prevailing view in the mainstream (not fundamentalist) churches; see below. But that is one (probably one of several - Wells certainly seems to think Moon opposes Darwinism) passing explanation out of over 200 volumes of speeches. There is no mention whatsoever of evolution in the Unification Church's main book of teachings, Divine Principle. (Anyone can check this by searching, as the entire text is online.)

The second reference [21], from Nature magazine, assumes some opposition (probably based on that of Wells). It says: "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church." This statement can be interpreted to mean that the Unification Church is opposed to evolution, or it can be interpreted to mean that there is opposition to evolution within the Unification Church. The latter is correct, although it would be misleading to give the impression that this opposition is an official position, or that the beliefs of members are like those of most literalist Christians who believe in some version of a young earth. The position of the typical member is nuanced, and is remarkably similar to that in an article I just happened upon, Theistic evolution, which claims to be the most prominent view in the mainstream churches.

So it would be correct to say that Rev. Moon has said that he doesn't believe that evolution took place without the help of God, but it would be misleading and incorrect to assert that any of these four references indicate that the Unification Church opposes evolution. -Exucmember 06:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. All of this is of only tangential interest to a Wells biography anyway. As I understand the attack on Wells here, it is as follows. Wells is a Moonie; Moon opposes evolution; evolution opposition is pseudoscience; the scientific community rejects pseudoscience; hence Wells is wrong.

This reasoning is wrong and offensive. Scientists can debate the merits of Wells's ideas without the name-calling or the strawman attacks. Roger 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article would also be more readable to an ordinary person if a lot of the secondary stuff was cut out. Steve Dufour 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rog, you just can't avoid leaping to contusions, can you? "[E]volution opposition is pseudoscience"? No, Rog, evolution opposition is not pseudoscience -- it is merely myth-based denial of available natural facts driven by a need for humans to create a security blanket of being part of a "divine" (supernatural) purpose rather than random chance. Pseudoscience would be intelliget design, which is creationism masquerading as science. Try to get this stuff straight, will ya? It's really quite simple.

This, "the scientific community rejects pseudoscience" is quite the tautology, no? It's like saying that capitalists reject socialism (as they narrowly understand it) because it does not follow the rules of capitalism. Duh. (BTW, the rest of your syllogism, given what I pointed out above falls apart quicker than ID's claim to be science).

Steve, care to explain the "why" for your comment? Bald statements are of little value as they offer no reference points from which to discuss anything. •Jim62sch• 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here is an example. You could write:

"Fred insulted Joe's mother. Joe punched Fred in the face."

Or you could write:

"Fred insulted Joe's mother. In response to this, Joe punched Fred in the face, which hurt Fred."

Although the second version gives more information I think most people would say the first is more effective. Steve Dufour 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It also leaves out pertinent facts. Brevity is often the soul of mis- or disinformation. We could, for example, note that "Anna Nichole Smith died". When? Of what? Who was she? Why is her death important? Are the police investigating, and if so do they suspect foul-play or suicide? I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. Remember, we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a headline. •Jim62sch• 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then additional facts should be given. Steve Dufour 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Funding of Wells's education

Although the statement is often made that Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church funded Wells's graduate studies, it was in fact only his graduate studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his doctorate in Religious Studies at Yale University that were funded by the church. Unification Church leaders opposed his spending time to pursue another doctorate in Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, for which he had already secured independent funding.

I personally know this to be factually accurate, but several users have insisted on keeping the fully false version which is not supported by the reference, that Wells's PhD at Berkeley was funded by the Unification Church. Wells was opposed in his efforts to go to Berkeley by church leaders. He was offered a junior administrative position at the seminary as an alternative, which he called "insulting" for a Yale PhD. Having already secured funding independent of the church, he was reluctant to give up those plans, but he wrote a letter to Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak offering to do so if Rev. Kwak would make a similar sacrifice and return the International Religious Foundation to seminary control. This was not a shallow "you won't so I won't" request; Wells genuinely believed that this would be best for both IRF and the seminary, and gave detailed reasons to that effect in the letter. -Exucmember 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well as long as you know it to be factually accurate... I don't suppose you have a source for this, or are just supposed to cite you in the article? The article has 4 sources that say they do, one of which is Moon. FeloniousMonk 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version is supported by citations. If you have citations which support your version, please add them. If you don't have citations which support your version, then don't change the article. Please consult WP:V. Guettarda 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The citations provided do not support the claim as stated in the article, which is false. The cited material does not make those false claims. Even if they did, they would be factually inaccurate. We are interested in factual accuracy. -Exucmember 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, see WP:V. You may be correct, but the "hidden truth" you say you have access to just doesn't cut it, since fails WP:V. The article is supposed by the refs. Guettarda 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your edit warring here and at Icons is disruptive and needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are interested in factual accuracy. We just don't think that the best way to acheive factual accuracy is to reject a properly cited statement because one editor claims personal knowledge to the contrary which he cannot support with a verifiable source.

Incidentally, accusing other editors of "lack of interest in correct version of facts" isn't exactly the best way to show good faith. Tsumetai 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, our sourcing may not support the current version. The two relevant sources for the funding are [30] from a prominent liberal blogger (who while I personally consider reliable isn't really a WP:RS for most purposes) and a salon article which just says that his education was "bankrolled" by the UC without going into any detail. JoshuaZ 14:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exucmember is not edit warring. He has usefully pointed out an error in the article, and tried to correct it. How Wells funded his education is not particularly important or relevant, and we certainly don't need to insert some blogger's malicious gossip. This is yet another example of false negative information being inserted based on personal animosity. That is what needs to stop. Roger 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, please calm down. A) Edit warring is not based on whether or not somoene is correct but how they are editing. Exu's editing patterns are disruptive and constitute edit warring. Furthermore, Exu didn't (it seems) bother to check the source's reliability but rather made an assertion based on original research which is completely unacceptable. How Wells funded his education is relevant if in fact his biology education was funded by the church because it goes further to the reasons behind his getting the dgree. Asserting that this is "another example of false negative information being inserted based on personal animosity" is simply inaccurate given that it was sourced and seems to be part of your general pattern of trying to assume the worst faith possible. Instead of telling us "what needs to stop" you could maybe help look for other sources related to this matter so we can actually resolve where the money came from. JoshuaZ 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there was much published on the subject of "How did Jonathan Wells pay for his education?" :-) Steve Dufour 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course no one cares how Wells paid for his education, except a few conspiracy theorists who hate him. If Exucmember knows that the article has a false statement about the matter, then he should remove it immediately, as per WP policy, and not wait for FeloniousMonk to scour all the left-wing blogs for gossip on the subject. Roger 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I see that you have chosen to ignore warnings by a host of respected editors and have continued your unwarranted attacks on FM. Maybe you should actually look at the edits being made to the page. There is a dispute between ExC and an anon; the anon's position is directly supported by one reference (albeit one that may fail RS, although DarkSyde has always been quite accurate) and indirectly supported by another, while ExC refuses to cite any references, despite claiming to know "the Truth". Guettarda 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exucmember did not "refuse" to cite references. If he knew of any published information on the subject I'm sure he would have been glad to share it. But please keep on persecuting him. He might get so fed-up and angry with it that he will return to the church just to spite you. ;-) Steve Dufour 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The facts are that neither he nor you have provided a single article to support of your position. 151.151.21.103 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If I knew of a published source which said anything about how Wells paid for his schooling at UCB I would mention it. Steve Dufour 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger. No the removal of statements one thinks is false but are well-cited is not required to be removed "immediately" under Wikipedia policy (and again, until I looked at the sourcing, ExC didn't even know that there was a sourcing issue). Your attacks on FM don't accomplish anything, you have been warned not to do so by multiple uninvolved admins such as Raul(who actually warned you about making such attacks on your blog. To then proceed to make such comments directly on Wikipedia boggles the mind). JoshuaZ 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the page says:

"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. "

I guess the question is if the statement is really "poorly sourced"; on the other hand Wells will probably not sue over it. :-) Steve Dufour 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is poorly sourced. I am against the ongoing false personal attacks on Wells. I am not the one making personal attacks. JoshuaZ, I don't know who Raul is, but as far as I know he doesn't speak for Wikipedia, and he certainly cannot dictate what I can say or not say on my blog. 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, Raul654 explained this all on your talk page in nauseating detail. And you again missed my major point- you've already been warned about personal attacks on multiple occasions. So cut it out. JoshuaZ 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, your single-minded focus on FM smacks of an unhealthy obsession that you really need to get over. As Joshus explained to you, while the issue of sourcing is an important one, it is certainly not something that casts aspersions on the work of FM (or even DarkSyde for that matter). Your issue with Raul is one you need to take up with him, on his page, not here. Do be a good boy and respond accordingly.

The issue of funding itself goes toward motive and is thus important. If self-righteous shrill right-wing harpies can shriek that Judge Jones, "the Kitzmiller Traitor", was only in his position due to the votes of conservative christians, and should thus have been in servile toadying obeisance to their whims, I think we can equally point to any funding Wells received from the UC.•Jim62sch• 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct if you are saying that self-rightous shrill shrieking is protected by the First Amendment, however that does not mean it is the best way to write a WP article. Steve Dufour 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Under "normal" circumstances, who paid for someone's education would be a moot point. But Wells claims Moon himself picked Wells for the PhD program, yes? That alone makes it highly noteworthy. Add that fact to the one where Wells says Moon (Moon's words) influenced his decision to dedicate his life to destroying Darwinism and you got a bucket of noteworthy stuff to cover. Yeah, who paid for his schooling is highly noteworthy in this context. Not sinister, but noteworthy. Mr Christopher 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be better not to say anything unless we are sure which is the right answer? Steve Dufour 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a solid quote saying "paid for his graduate studies" and a less solid one saying "paid for his doctoral studies at Yale and Berkeley". And we have Wells saying that he was selected to destroy Darwinism. Regardless of whether it was just Yale, just Berkeley, or Yale and Berkeley, the underlying point is the same - the church paid for him to gain credentials on his path to "destroy Darwinism". Obviously, it would be really interesting if the church - or anyone else - paid for Wells to go to Berkeley, since it would mean that his doctoral advisor or the department did not foot the bill...and that would be very telling. Guettarda 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Guerttarda and the others are so focused on ad hominem attacks on Wells. How Wells funded his education doesn't say anything about the merits of his books and ideas. If you want to expend a lot of energy trying to trace Wells's finances, then go ahead, but please don't insert your silly speculations into the article until you have some verifiable facts. Roger 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Rog, in light of your own writing that comment is just too humourous for a rational reply. •Jim62sch• 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No good source for scientific rejection of Icons

I removed this: "Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community." Jim62sch had added some citations to opinions from the scientific community, but none of them actually reject Wells's assertions and conclusions in his book. Roger 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I added what? When was this Rog? Oh, I see, you assume that the last person to edit added the links. You really need to do a bit more fact-checking. Tut-tut.

And what does the title of this newest section mean? Sounds a bit like one person rabid distortion of facts dealing with a rabid distortion of facts to me. But, then, that is the pspecialty of the rightist-pietistic-creationists, isn't it? If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. •Jim62sch• 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no good source for rejecting Icons and other oddities promoted by Wells? Let's take it from the top...And a one and a two and a...

• New Trouble for Wells’s “Icon of Anti-Evolution #1”…
• Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith
• Iconoclasts of Evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells & the Ontogeny of a Fraud
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Simply Incorrect Embryology (Chapter 3)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Quote-Mining, Trivializing, and Generally Getting it Wrong (Chapter 7)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Design and Deceit (Chapter 8)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: The Secret is Lies (Chapter 9)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: IC is not nice (Chapter 10)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Darwin And Conservatism (Chapter 14)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: “Traditional Christianity,” Ersatz Revolutionaries, and the Culture War (Chapter 15)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Whose Head is Ugly? Jonathan Wells and Lysenkoism (Chapter 16)
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: PIG Ignorant About Ohio
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: ID’s Newspeak

Enjoy! Oh, Steve I have a question for you, why is Wells such a bald faced liar? Isn't that sort of thing frowned upon by the Unification Church?Mr Christopher 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few more to study when you get done with the above -

• ICONS OF EVOLUTION? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong this one criticizes each chapter of his book.
• Icons of Evolution FAQs
• Science or Myth?Defeating the Discovery Institute

And here is one for the kids from the right wing, science promoting, fundy lovin' Eagle Forum which made Icons of Evolution it's January 2001 Book of the Month! What a shocker! That might shed some light on why at least one editor here want to censor any criticism of Wells. Hmm...Who knew? And Steve, I am curious to know the policy the Unification Chruch has on lying and misleading people. Is it ok to lie to the public if your lies are a part of the effort to destroy Darwinism? Are some lies and distortions ok and others are not? Mr Christopher 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never read any of Wells's books, nor can I read his mind to know if he is writing his true beliefs. It is certainly possible that he does not believe in what he is saying at all but has another, hidden agenda. That is another reason to stick to the facts alone. Steve Dufour 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what Roger meant. The word "scientific" threw me. •Jim62sch• 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When I took psychology I was told that we were supposed to study behavior, not try to figure out what was in people's minds. Steve Dufour 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhkaayyy. Doesn't work well for real world communications, though. If one can't infer another's meaning, there's not really any communication. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can comment on what another person said or did without telling them what they are thinking or feeling. Steve Dufour 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Forest for trees. •Jim62sch• 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is often true. Steve Dufour 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, all too often here. In fact, I was discussing meaning (i.e. semantics in the truest sense) and you were off on some other planet talking about psychology. Interesting. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Claim in article not supported by ANY of 4 citations

Of the four citations given to support the contention that the Unification Church opposes evolution, none match the claim accurately.

• The third one [22] is laughable - one single unnamed Japanese member claiming guidance from a church philosophy writer. Not RS and should be deleted immediately.

• The fourth [23] is sloppy with facts I'm sorry to say, but does not say that the Unification Church opposes evolution, claiming only that Rev. Moon wanted Wells to destroy Darwinism, something the author apparently assumes with no basis.

• The first one [20] probably comes closest, Rev. Moon explaining a nuanced version very similar to the prevailing view in the mainstream (not fundamentalist) churches; see below. But that is one (probably one of several - Wells certainly seems to think Moon opposes Darwinism) passing explanation out of over 200 volumes of speeches. There is no mention whatsoever of evolution in the Unification Church's main book of teachings, Divine Principle. (Anyone can check this by searching, as the entire text is online.)

• The second reference [21], from Nature magazine, assumes some opposition (probably based on that of Wells). It says: "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church." This statement can be interpreted to mean that the Unification Church is opposed to evolution, or it can be interpreted to mean that there is opposition to evolution within the Unification Church. The latter is correct, although it would be misleading to give the impression that this opposition is an official position, or that the beliefs of members are like those of most literalist Christians who believe in some version of a young earth. The position of the typical member is nuanced, and is remarkably similar to that in an article I just happened upon, Theistic evolution, which claims to be the most prominent view in the mainstream churches.

So it would be correct to say that Rev. Moon has said that he doesn't believe that evolution took place without the help of God, but it is misleading and incorrect to assert that any of these four references indicate that the Unification Church opposes evolution. -Exucmember 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said higher up the page, when this was discussed initially, Nature is one of the most respectable and prominent publications. Coyne's statement is unlikely to have gone unnoticed by the church, but there doesn't appear to be any disagreement from the church hierarchy. The most important source here is probably Wells himself. Coyne's statement is the most direct. Moon's statement supports the other statements. The fourth statement, while perhaps inadequate on its own, is consistent with, and complements the others. Since Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from good secondary or tertiary sources, Coyne's (apparently unchallenged) statement is the correct starting point for what we have to say. Moon's statement should never be the starting point - it's a primary source, which is most useful because it supports the other secondary and tertiary sources. Guettarda 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles given as sources appear to the accurate. 151.151.73.169 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution entails various aspects. Not all of these are meant when saying someone "supports evolution" or "opposes evolution":

1. that the various species appeared over the long course of hundreds of millions of years
   • i.e., that the fossil record authentic
2. that species are in some way connected to previously existing ones (Common descent)
3. that species which don't adapt well, go extinct (Natural selection)
4. that natural processes alone (mutations, natural selection) can account for the emergence of all species including man
5. that God set up the natural processes and/or laws, but otherwise did not intervene
   • i.e., man evolved naturally

You'll find that churches pick and choose which of these items to believe in. And when laymen speak loosely of "opposing evolution" or "supporting evolution" they usually are thinking of a specific set of which others do not share. Thus, disputants can talk at cross purposes. --Uncle Ed 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the UC does not oppose evolution? If not I do not see what your point is here. 151.151.73.169 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The church might well have a secret, hidden plan to oppose evolution. If so the evidence is well hidden. Out of tens of thousands of members around the world only one, Wells, is doing anything concerning evolution. Steve Dufour 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement from Sun Myung Moon indicates that he believes in Theistic evolution. This is not the same as opposing evolution. These comments by Sun Myung Moon are not the same as an official policy of the church or a church teaching in Divine Principle. None of the other sources say that the Unification Church opposes evolution; they say things that are similar or related. It would be dishonest for the article to claim that the Unification Church opposes evolution using these references. User:Guettarda's reasoning about the response of the Unification Church shows only that he is not familiar with the church and its culture, which often responds in a typically east Asian fashion. In addition to accurate press it didn't like, it endured outrageous lies for many years. It took more than 10 years for it even to make a no-brainer response to the hate speech "Moonie."

The Nature magazine reference does not clearly state exactly what the opposition is; it assumes some opposition, probably based on that of Wells. But the phrasing in this Jonathan Corrigan Wells article implies that opposition to evolution is a policy of the church, which is not supported by any of the references. User:Guettarda has managed to ignore this point even though it has been brought up now repeatedly by 3 current or former members, and instead insists on simply reverting with no modifications. -Exucmember 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in Nature [31] is explicit: 'Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church. Church founder Sun Myung Moon has frequently condemned darwinism for giving God no role in the history of life.' It cites Moon specifically, your objection is groundless. 151.151.73.169 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the church's position at Talk:Level of support for evolution‎. Bear in mind that it's a nuanced position. --Uncle Ed 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You say you explained the church's position, but where are the sources? You cited nothing there and without sources it's just your opinion. 151.151.21.101 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my source is the church's Unification Thought Institute. [32]. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the exact same website as footnote number 23 in the article that Exucmember claims is 'laughable - one single unnamed Japanese member claiming guidance from a church philosophy writer. Not RS and should be deleted immediately.' What do you say to that? 151.151.73.169 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The church doesn't have any official position on evolution. Moon's opinions are not "the church." No one except Steve has addressed this issue. -Exucmember 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This notion that Moon's opinion is just that and does not reflect the Unification Church's opinion is interesting. What exactly is the Unification Church without Moon himself? Just curious if you can submit one instance where the church took a stance that Moon does not support. I'd be interested in seeing examples where the church's position and Moon's conflict. That would be fascinating. Mr Christopher 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that Moon's opinion is just that and does not reflect the Unification Church's opinion is interesting BS. No one, and I mean no one, is buying that bill of goods. 151.151.73.169 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I too would like to see one example where the church's position and Moon's conflict over evolution. I suspect there are none, or else they'd have presented it already. We've asked them dozens of times for articles supporting their claim that the church does not oppose evolution and so far they've provided zero. I'd gladly STFU were they to provide just one. 151.151.73.169 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for Moon being the leader of his church then. I guess he never got the official notice that he has been demoted. Save the wear on your fingers. Your claim that Moon's opinion is just that and does not reflect the Unification Church's opinion is BS. 151.151.73.169 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And you both continue to mislead (misquoting me), as does the article (misquoting the purported sources). Moon's opinions are not exactly the same as an official church position. What possible objection could you have to the article attributing an opinion to Moon rather than implying an official church position? -Exucmember 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles cited support this article and are consistent with each other. There's somebody trying to do some misleading here alright, but it's not who you're saying it is. 151.151.73.169 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that it'd be a pretty rare founder of a religion who would allow the opinions of others to supercede his.

Exuc: where were you misquoted? •Jim62sch• 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to retract my criticism of the third reference [22], which I didn't look at carefully enough. I thought it was a single unnamed Japanese member claiming "supervision of Sang Hun Lee." It seems, rather, to be the work of the Unification Thought Institute, so it is a tertiary church publication and could legitimately be considered to be church teachings. This is a new development since I left the church. When I was a member, there was no official position on evolution, and even the varying opinions of members were hardly ever talked about. Moon's opinion is not in conflict with the church teachings, it was simply never formalized as a church teaching, at least not while I was a member. Asking for a reference to support the assertion that the church has no official teaching on a particular topic is obviously ludicrous!

In that light, we have 2 references that indicate that the church, and Moon, believe in Theistic evolution, one that claims "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church. Church founder Sun Myung Moon has frequently condemned darwinism for giving God no role in the history of life" (and goes on to talk about Wells's crusade), and one that uses hate speech and sloppy assumptions, but doesn't say the church opposes Darwinism. This article, however, says "evolution, which is opposed by Moon's Unification Church." It may be a minor discrepancy to those here who have a much wider margin of error when they quote me, but it is inexact and misleading as stated. -Exucmember 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, "The Contemporary Theory of Evolution (NeoDarwinism) Is Wrong" sounds like a pro-evolution stance to me.

Where did you get the idea that the author was Japanese?

What the hell does point A have to do with point B? - "It may be a minor discrepancy to those here who have a much wider margin of error when they quote me, but it is inexact and misleading as stated." •Jim62sch• 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been talking to you for days about the sources for the UC opposing evolution until we were blue in the face and had to revert you God knows how many times over that. And after all your bold proclaimations and hullabaloo from you, you now only sheepishly concede that the Unification Thought Institute is an offical source? Tut, tut. It's a doctrinal position published by an offical UC body: 'Unless the theory of evolution is overcome, people will continue to accept atheism and materialism and will be prevented from approaching God.' [33] I only wish you'd read it sooner and spared us the aggravation and conflict. 151.151.21.100 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was in the church, none of the publications of the Unification Thought Institute, except the Unification Thought books themselves, would have been considered official church teaching. Your statement that it is a doctrinal position is certainly wrong, and I don't know whether it would be considered "church teaching" now. That's why I said "could," as in "possibly." I did not concede that it is an official source. (But I think I see now why there are so many inaccuracies in the article.) To be completely fair and accurate - and I'm sure everyone here wants to be fair and accurate - we should ask a current church member if there is any policy (preferably citable) regarding what is a church teaching. Publications of UTI were not considered church teachings while I was a member; they were just the opinion of that particular author, and sometimes the quality was quite low, and the opinion a minority opinion. Perhaps that has changed, perhaps not. But I see you have no problem with self-confidence, as you are so sure that you understand the internal workings of the Unification Church better than I do that you are willing to repeatedly make uncivil comments. -Exucmember 04:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was discovered that the church did have a policy against evolution I would really have to repent since I have been a member for 30 years and have so far done nothing against evolution. I don't even know where I would start. :-) Steve Dufour 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You would be forgiven, because - as you said - it was a secret policy that long-time members and even seminary graduates had never heard a whisper of. -Exucmember 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to do a bunch of original research into the theology of the Unification Church. It appears that you can find church members with a range of views, as with other religions. Moon himself says that he does not deny evolution. What difference does it make whether the church is for or against evolution, whatever that means? Wells has evidently been influence by his theological beliefs. That is the relevant point here. Roger 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What OR? Your definition of OR is, as are most of your other definitions, likely a bit whacky.

BTW: saying (essentially) that "evolution only exists if God wills it (in each specific case)" is not a statement of agreement with evolution. It is a denial of evolution as defined by science. •Jim62sch• 14:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some tables

Here is a simple overview of common US positions:

2004 Gallup Poll on human origins

Evolution: Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life...		"Creationism"
... but God had no part in this process	... but God guided this process	God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
"Darwinism"	Creationism

Some say that:

The majority of Americans believe in evolution

Supporters of Evolution	"Creationists"
51%	45%

Others say that:

Americans overwhelmingly reject evolution

"Evolution"	Creationism
13%	Progressive creationism (38%)	Young-Earth creationism (45%)

Each side claims the entirety of the "middle ground", based probably on different intrepretations of "Theistic evolution". --Uncle Ed 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point here? 151.151.21.101 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But due weight should probably go to those trained in the relevant subjects. So with respect to evolutions, biology and geology this skews the numbers remarkably. Of course some may consider the scientists brainwashed rather than knowledgable. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed Poor's table has no direct bearing on this article. I'm just not clear what value he thinks he is adding here. 151.151.73.169 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think hes noting that creationists in the USA are at least 45% and thus should be heard. David D. (Talk) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is called misdirection. The beliefs of the general public are not what determines which 'theories' are accepted or rejected by the scienctific community, and Wells claims his 'theories' about ID are good science. 151.151.21.101 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence my point about due weight above. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his point is likely that "progressive Creationism" (a bullshit term if I ever heard one) is claimed by some to be evolution. Maybe? Weird point that defies logic, but.... •Jim62sch• 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i just discovered we have an article on progressive creationism too. And to suggest it is rejection of evolution is a bit strange. It is not evolution that is being rejected, it is the creation of Kinds that is being rejected, along with a literal interpretation of the bible. This is disputed? David D. (Talk) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an old concept with a new name that should be taken out and shot; and yes, it is anti-evolution. To say that it is not is akin to saying that ID, phrenology, astrology and alchemy are science. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Glad my tables could shed some light for you, David. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A version of Pascals wager? David D. (Talk) 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then how about providing a source for what you Steve Dufour, Exucmember keeping claiming, that the Unification Church does not oppose evolution? The one you provided earlier says just the opposite and Exucmember said it's 'laughable - one single unnamed Japanese member claiming guidance from a church philosophy writer. Not RS and should be deleted immediately.' 151.151.21.99 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that this discussion goes beyond Wells and into the realm of the broader issues attending to Wells's stated views. Insofar as there are at least a couple of folks reading this who appear to subscribe to some form of progressive creationism or theistic evolution (as opposed to a basically deistic view), I can't help but wonder what the 38% of Americans subscribing to the view of progressive creationism would speculate God actually does? Does God, according to the progressive creationist, (A) decide the manner in which random mutations occur every step of the way? or is it (B) just an occasional tweaking so the appearance of randomness remains? If (B), is this designed to test one's faith in the scriptures? (choose one: yes/no/neither-yes-or-no/both-yes-and-no). Or, does God (C) only get involved in deciding when speciation will occur among more complex organisms which develop in keeping with punctuated equilibrium? Does God, according to the progressive creationist, (D) merely decide when the planetary and climatic stressors leading to punctuations in the equilibrium will occur, or (E) actually make the decisions about how species are specifically directed to genetically adapt? [If E, is it (E1) a "hands on" decision or (E2) merely advice? (If yes to E, choose one: E1/E2/neither/both)]. Or, is there (F) some intermediary miracle involved, as in "poof", voila, a sudden new reality that can never be traced, as in "what just happened"? or is it a (G) more subtle directivity that appears to involve natural selection, but is actually something else? Does God (H) also make the decisions about specifically what interspecies conflicts will contribute to punctuations in the equilibrium of the more complex species? (I) Fill in a brief additional answer _________________________________. (Choose one or more of the above, or none of the above.., Note:this set of questions is of course far less than exhaustive. But, a quick reminder, if one is among the aforementioned 38%: it appears to have taken some 3-4 million years to get from Lucy (Australopithecus) to now, and some 4,000,000,000 years to get from the first microbe to here; while humans have only been seriously investigating and tracking these developments for about 150-200 years to date, which is less than 1/20-millionth of the total time elapsed since life, according to currently accepted theory, began on Earth.) ... Kenosis 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this isn't really an appropriate forum for such a discussion. eaolson 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as to this whole talk section. ... Kenosis 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying "opposed to evolution" is just too ambiguous to be useful. There is a range of views that people have. The article on Wells should stick to Wells's prominent views, and leave the views of others to other articles. Roger 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. Wikipedia is not a free host for public relations departments, including that of individuals such as Mr. Wells. Mr. Wells is notable because he makes his way by opposing certain major trends, most notably because of his direct involvement in the intelligent design movement. Thus the discussion of others' response to Mr. Wells's response to their positions is quite central to this article. With that said, arguments about precisely how the WP editors will do this appear to constitute a very reasonable discussion. ... Kenosis 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DENSE. •Jim62sch• 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

claims of too much criticism

Wells is only noteworthy because of his controversial ideas and activities, period. He is by definition a controversial figure so writing about him poses many challenges. If a couple of people here feel there is too much criticism in the article, then go ahead and make some non-critical imrpovements instead of adding bogus re-write tags and such. And keep in mind Wells claim to fame is his dishonest portrayal of biology, specifically evolution.

Keep in mind there are two types of sources who write about Wells, those who perpetuate his deception and lies (the Discovery Institute comes to mind) and those who are critical of his underhanded and misleading tactics. One of those groups is far more honest and relaible than the other. That makes using sources somewhat of a challenge regardless of how you feel about the guy. Obviously Wells is not bothered by people pointing out how profoundly dishonest he is, otherwise he's stop making a living from lying to people. But, as I mentioned previously, simply add some neutral stuff to the article if you feel there is too much criticism and spare us the tagging. Mr Christopher 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we make the article really brief: "Wells is a disingenuous charlatan who portays himself as a scientist and is loved by the bible-thumping crowd and members of alternate religions". Both sides, neat, short (per Steve's request). •Jim62sch• 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's too brief. It just seems to me to be an obvious solution, if you feel there is too much criticism in the article then add some non-critical substance to it. Mr Christopher 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I would like to know where he was born and something about his family. Steve Dufour 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then research it and add it, Steve. Mr Christopher 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Or: "Jonathan Wells is an author who says that his life's purpose is to destory Darwinism. His most well-known book is Icons of Evolution, published in 2000."  :-) Steve Dufour 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Do any of the editors who insist on tagging the article care to explain their position? The tag says "see talk page", but I don't see anything on talk. Since they refuse to address their gripes, this is just specious. Guettarda 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't tag it, but I agree with the tag. The article is very unbalanced. Almost every paragraph is written from the perspective of his critics. There are plenty of comments here explaining the unfairness of the criticism. Roger 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you agree -- one of your icons is not being granted the hagiographic treatment you desire. Fact is the article is well sourced and rather than bitch find other sources, add more info. But no, that would be work and it is easier to bitch. •Jim62sch• 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since by "critics" you mean the scientific community, the amount of real estate in the article given over to their views appears entirely appropriate considering that they view ID as pseudoscience and Wells' opinions are a notable set of ID arguments and policy, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Given that, it appears to me that the scientific community's view's here are actually under-represented and need expanding, something I'll be working on. FeloniousMonk 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that's a start. But we need something more specific. There has been a lot of back and forth, but I think that more of the concerns raised have been addressed. Section by section:

• #HIV Denial - Ed asked whether there was a source for this. This is now well-sourced.
• #Biologist? - This has been discussed several times. He has a biology degree, but there's not evidence that he has done any research since his PhD. He has three publications, the only first-authored one being in 1988. There is two ways that we could deal with this - the way that we are doing right now (mention his degree and leave it at that) or we could document that fact that he calls himself a biologist and that this has been disputed, by whom, and on what grounds. What we can't do, per NPOV, is simply call him a biologist and leave it at that.
• #Autobiographical claims in Icons - While I believe that the text this section refers to is no longer in the article, I think it's fairly clear that Wells is a proponent of intelligent design (especially given his TOPS framework).
• #Disambiguation - This issue was settled.
• #Uncited info on his opinions on AIDS - As above.
• #Neutral point of view - Steve supplied no details.
• #more uncited info - The geology information was removed and has not been reinserted, per Steve's request. The information about his military career is now cited.
• #my additions removed - Settled.
• #"apemen" - Settled.
• #Date of birth - This appears to have been settled. While his actual date of birth is still missing, we can't do much about that without a reliable source.
• #"Creationist" - ID is well established as being creationist. However, the article has been renamed. I don't believe that this is a major issue right now.
• #Relative importance of subject? - Im not sure whether Steve's concern was dealt with, but I don't see any analysis of the issue or concrete suggestions for improvement.
• #Deleted statements of Wells' positions - Some of this material is in the article, some isn't. I'm not sure if these concerns are dealt with or not.
• #Year of Birth - Dealt with (see above).
• #Claims about cancer - Briefly mentioned, could be fleshed out some more.
• #Being a fellow is not notable - Not certain if this was dealt with, but since this lists an achievement, I don't see how this could be related to an allegation that the article is "unbalanced" because it is written from the perspective of critics.
• #Not mentioned in Discovery Institute article - This is a comment about the DI article, not this one.
• #Army record removed - This has been dealt with, see above.
• #"Biology author" - This has been dealt with.
• #Is he a "biology writer"? - As above.
• #Rather than editing the article... - No actionable comments here.
• #What Wells really objects to - This has been dealt with and the comments sourced.
• #the NNDB - Issue dealt with.
• #Problematic content - Despite repeated requests, CyberAnth refused to elaborate on his/her concern. Not actionable.
• #Notable Names Database - See above.
• #Moon's Unification Church opposition to evolution - Per WP:V we can only work on verifiable content. The issue is well referenced, and despite requests, no one has provided any rebuttal of these statements from the church. Unreferenced "personal knowledge" is unacceptable per Wikipedia policy.
• #NPOV issues with CyberAnth's version - CyberAnth has not commented on any of the concerns raised with her/his version. It's pretty clear that these changes are not compatible with NPOV.
• #Do we need to explain the title of the book? - This was dealt with.
• #Unification Church position on evolution - Per above.
• #Funding of Wells's education - The information is in keeping with the available sources. Personal knowledge unsupported by references is unacceptable per WP:V.
• #No good source for scientific rejection of Icons - The rejection of Icons is well documented. Removal of this information is incompatible with WP:NPOV.
• #Claim in article not supported by ANY of 4 citations - Specious. Dealt with per #Moon's Unification Church opposition to evolution
• #Some tables - Off topic, not really related to the article.
• #claims of too much criticism - Not a complaint about article contents, complements what's in this section.
• #Unbalanced - This section.
• #A call for civility - Not a complaint about article contents.
• #Too much detail? - This is a question about reading level, not balance.

After looking at everything discussed on the talk page, I see nothing that justifies the tagging. Guettarda 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article is exceptionally well-sourced as it is. Since the content present is accurate, further ojections are more likely to result in more sources being added rather than article content being removed, which appears to be the goal of a particular group here. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A call for civility

Everyone, can we tone down the acrimony a bit? It seems that the edits and discussion on this article are becoming more and more heated every day. There are accusations of vandalism over obviously good-faith edits, and accusations of personal attacks where it doesn't seem warranted. See Wikipedia:Civility. eaolson 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep your advice in mind. Steve Dufour 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much detail?

I wonder if the average reader would be able to understand much of what is talked about in these two sections:

Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving

In a 2004 paper in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Wells proposed his "Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving" (TOPS), which was intended to provide a mechanism by which intelligent design "could lead to new hypotheses and scientific discoveries". The idea is based on two fundamental assumptions, that "Darwinian evolution" is false, and that intelligent design is true. Rather than seeking experimental verification for intelligent design, TOPS "explore[s] what happens when ID rather than evolutionary theory is used as a framework to ask research questions".

In the paper, Wells sought to apply this to cancer and centrioles. Wells stated that "cancer is not correlated with any consistent pattern of DNA mutations, but it is correlated with abnormalities at the chromosomal level -- a phenomenon called "chromosomal instability", and that many researchers see cancer as a "centrosomal disease" rather than a DNA disease. This led him to centrioles. Since centrioles look like turbines under electron microscopy, Wells used the TOPS metholody to conclude that "if centrioles look like turbines they might actually be turbines".

In response to Wells's assertion that cancer was a disease of chromosomal instability and not genes, Ian Musgrave, writing in the The Panda's Thumb replied that "this knowledge seems to have eluded most researchers in the field" and pointed out that where chromosomal translocations underlying cancer, "chromosomal instability can be traced to a mutation in a single gene".

Centrioles

Using the TOPS methodology, which assumes that intelligent design is true and "Darwinian evolution" is false, Wells revisited the issue of centrioles in a 2005 paper entitled "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum. Wells's paper "assumes that [centrioles] are holistically designed to be turbines", and goes on to develop a hypothesis of how they work. The Discovery Institute lists this paper as a "featured article" on their list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design." This has been challenged by History and Philosophy of Science professor John M. Lynch, who points out that Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is edited by Italian creationist Giuseppe Sermonti and largley publishes only research outside the general scientific consensus. Lynch said of Rivista: "While there may be interesting ideas here, there is no indication that they represent mainstream thought in biology. And while this might be an 'internationally respected biology journal' within certain (anti-Darwinian) communities, it cannot be considered so among the majority." and "the influence of Rivista, we see that - as one would expect from the above - the journal is of negligible importance at best ... in the case of Rivista could not reasonable be called 'internationally respected'." The Discovery Institute's statement that Wells's paper is a peer reviewed article published in scientific journal runs counter to the testimony of intelligent design proponent Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the judge's findings and ruling.

Steve Dufour 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with what Steve Dufour appears to be saying here, the WP article on Wells already reduces such issues to a simple and understandable approach of pointing out the standing of Wells's views in the larger community of biologists and the scientific community in general. Dr._Lynch's commentary (also_cached_here) is a reliable source and appears relevant insofar as Wells's notability is directly connected to his involvement in intelligent design. But I agree the article need not go this far. To the extent that the WP article on Wells continues to be controversial as to its content, it may yet be appropriate in the future to be more specific in verifying the statements the WP article makes. Those statements in the WP article on Wells currently include several specific observations about Wells advocating directly against certain scientific consensus positions. If they need to be verified, it would be a reasonable approach, in keeping with WP policy, to put such things as the statements of Dr. Lynch and other relevant material into footnotes verifying statements the article makes. Indeed, it would not in my opinion be irrelevant to have a brief section on Wells's involvement in the intelligent design peer review controversy. And, in keeping with WP's continuing growth, if such a section were to get too long, an article such as Wells peer review controversy might even be appropriate, and can be interlinked with the Sternberg peer review controversy and other relevant articles. As Steve Dufour points out above, it's readily verifiable. ... Kenosis 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you only propose to remove content that shows Wells' views being rejected by the scientific community. What you seek to do is remove a significant view of the majority viewpoint. Doing flies in the face of the "article(s) should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." clause of WP:NPOV. Given that the scientific community's views are being given short shrift here, I'd suggest we cut some of the fluff around his background, which reads weasely right now. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make much difference since almost no one would have any interest in reading the article as it is. Steve Dufour 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. I also tried to remove the silly digression about the cover picture of his book.

If you can improve the readability of these sections, by all means do so. I don't see how there's too much detail here though. As for the book cover - that "silly digression" is a requirement for fair use. Guettarda 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to give that a try. However I am afraid that any changes I make will be quickly reverted. Steve Dufour 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Here is a try:

In 2004 and 2005 Wells published two papers in which he looked at centrioles from the point of view of Intelligent Design. These papers have been rejected by the scientific community.

The papers are listed down the page. Steve Dufour 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We're talking about readability, not deletion of content. How does this possibly benefit the reader? Guettarda 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Or am I missing a joke here? Guettarda 19:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the two sentences give the basic facts about the papers. If people are interested they can check out the links for further reading. Steve Dufour 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Presupposing readers will go and seek out relavant information defeats the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. "Interested readers" will be given the relavant information right here. Raul654 20:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give people some basic information on a subject and make them want to learn more. Steve Dufour 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

By that standard, why do we need anything more than the lead and a link to google. Guettarda 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to tell them a little to get them interested. :-) Steve Dufour 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Steve is saying that "our readers is as dumb 's a can o' paint", or if he thinks an encyclopaedia bio should read like the average blurb on a dust jacket of a pulp novel, but either way his statements are disconcerting. Our aim should be for more detail, not less. •Jim62sch• 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are very few people interested in reading about centrioles and polar forces. I don't think that makes them dumb as cans of paint however. :-) Steve Dufour 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of picture & discussion

Care to explain this change? What's the point of this? Guettarda 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is very hard to read because it keeps going off on side tracks. One of these is the discription of the book cover picture. That could not be removed unless the picture itself was removed. The picture can be seen on the book's article if anyone is interested. Steve Dufour 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh no. •Jim62sch• 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Icons of Evolution. In fact it shows up bigger on this page. Steve Dufour 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

? I don't think anyone was disputing its existence, but rather your reasoning. •Jim62sch• 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought your "Uh no" was in response to my, "The picture can be seen on the book's article if anyone is interested." :-) Steve Dufour 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Truce

Any man who says that his life's purpose is to destroy Darwinism is bound to attract heaps of critcism. Wells has flung his hat into the ring. We cannot reach into the ring for him and take it out, now that it's being trampled upon, merely because we share(d) his religion.

I prospose that Steve, ExUC and I back off on this point, let the (well-sourced) criticisms pile up, and stop trying to remove or challenge them. If there's something "positive" about him that's worthy of inclusion, we can always put that in for balance.

Agree:

• Uncle Ed
• Steve Dufour 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree:

• What well-sourced criticisms? I see now that FeloniousMonk has inserted an item claiming that a debate opponent called Wells a liar. How is this interesting or relevant or useful to anyone? Yes, debate opponents often use name-calling. The article does not say what the alleged lie was, or give the reader any way to assess the significance of the allegation. It is just a silly, petty, and negative personal attack. Roger 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Other:

• The question put to the editors here is perhaps incorrectly framed. It is not the editors' task to arrive at and balance "positive" and/or "negative" appearances for Mr. Wells. ... Kenosis 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Roger again likes to throw around the word libelous (occasionally substituting the incorrect "slanderous"), but what he fails to realise is that we are not publishing libel, we are quoting a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS. If there is any "libel" in the source, then it is up to Wells to deal with it, not to us nor the Prince of the Dark Buzz. •Jim62sch• 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting, when called on it, Roger removes the word libelous [34]. Hmmm. One wonders how many things in an unmoderated forum like a blog Roger might say that are less than factual, or how many things here he might be inclined to change here if taken to task. •Jim62sch• 01:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am afraid that it can be libel to republish a libelous claim. It can be damaging to Wells's reputation to call him a liar. If WP editors republish the claim, and assert that it accurately came from reliable sources, then the WP editors could be committing libel. No, it is not up to Wells to deal with everyone who calls him a liar. It is up to WP to use reliable sources and to not libel people. This particular instance is bad because it suggests that WP editors have some inside knowledege that Wells is a liar, as the article does not even reveal what the alleged lie is. Roger 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't know you had a law degree. Get off it, Roger, save your words of unwisdom for the Buzzites. By the way, calling a liar a liar is not libelous -- see the infamous Oscar Wilde sodomy case...yes, different country, but still applicable. •Jim62sch• 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think the libel issue amounts to much. Wells is a public figure and there is almost no chance that he will sue anyone for criticizing him. Steve Dufour 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What libel? Criticism ≠ libel. •Jim62sch• 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Positive? Negative?

I have never felt that the problem with the article was any unbalance between positive and negative information and opinion. Wells said he that he is out to destroy "Darwinism". For people who think "Darwinism" is a bad thing everything about Wells is positive. For people who think "Darwinism" is a good thing everything is negative. Steve Dufour 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to "Darwinism", I might also add the Establishment Clause, separation of church and state, scientific method, the scientific community, the peer review process, and a few other things that Mr. Wells has flown in the face of. But no matter how many of these factors one adds or removes, NPOV is not determined by balancing "positive" and "negative" appearances. ... Kenosis 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article stuck to explaining Wells based on his own words and his own point of view, then your comment would be accurate. Some people would agree with what he is doing, and some would disagree. As it is, the article reads like a smear piece written by his enemies, and will leave both the pro-Darwinists and the anti-Darwinists dissatisfied. Roger 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read through this again and I don't personally see that it reads like a smear piece. Of course, it's better to point out specific problematic parts of the article than to make such general comments. Wells is notable for his anti-Darwinism agenda, and this means he attracts critics, including many from the scientific community. We can't stick to giving only his point of view in the article- his own views, and those of some of his critics, are relevant. Friday (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning his critics' opinions of him. The same should be the case in any WP bio. Steve Dufour 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article plainly does not focus on critics' opinions of "him". Save for the minor scrap among the editors about whether it's relevant who funded his one particular graduate degree, this article quite clearly does not focus on his personality, but on issues, advocacy positions and organizational affiliations. The primary issues are those to which Mr. Wells attaches himself through his writing and his public statements. The article also briefly deals with his choices of affiliation, such as the Discovery Institute and the publisher of his work on aids reappraisal, affiliations which are directly relevant to his advocacy positions.

By Mr. Wells's own explicit choice, his published positions have broad implications in contemporary society; that is, they are not obscure theological matters to which the rest of the society may have generations to respond before considering whether to implement them, or which involve merely individual personal spiritual or lifestyle choices by his readers. Thus the kinds of issues discussed in the article are directly relevant to a meaningful introduction of what's notable about him. Moreover, when Mr. Wells says he seeks to defeat "Darwinism", he is not merely advocating against social Darwinism and taking a Leo Buscaglia-like position that everybody should love one another. The positions dealt with in the WP Wells article are of immediate, explicit, direct and identifiable relevance to widely important issues of contemporary public policy, such as separation of church and state, science education, aids reappraisal, scientific method (including peer review), and a host of other issues important to current public policy. These issues are thus quite appropriate to deal with in this Wikipedia article about Mr. Wells in order to have any meaningful presentation of why he is worth writing an article about, especially insofar as these wider issues intersect with Wells's stated positions, and especially insofar as the debates about his positions are already published by reliable sources.

The article could be much better written than it is (just my personal opinion here). But the basic points of focus I persently see in the article are sound and in keeping with WP policy (WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, etc.) ... Kenosis 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. One little thing: Wells did not write a book on AIDS reappraisal. The article just mentions that he and an author of one such book share the same publisher. Steve Dufour 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Steve Dufour. I did not say "book"; I said "work". For a hypothetical example, if it is instead the case that Wells has not actively worked on the issue, by all means modify the article so as to make clear that his involvement is limited to being a signatory to the cited published statements about aids reappraisal, citing to any relevant, verifiable, reliable sources in support of such modifications. ... Kenosis 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wells's involvement with AIDS reappraisal seems to be limited to signing a letter. Steve Dufour 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that seem to think otherwise. JoshuaZ 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have no source that cites or alleges Wells being involved with AIDS reappraisal, beyond just signing a petition. Roger 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, we have [35] and the Vancouver sun article. Both of which are cited in the article I believe. JoshuaZ 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's actually four (4) articles given as sources for Wells's rejection of the HIV being the cause of AIDS in the article, a fact that Roger repeatedly ignores. 151.151.21.101 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, none of those 4 sources cites or alleges Wells being involved with AIDS reappraisal, beyond just signing a petition. JoshuaZ's reference above just cites Wikipedia! Roger 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, you seem to be confused about a variety of things. I presume you mean the Seattlest entry. It doesn't cite Wikipedia at all, all it does is have a see also link from AIDS reappraisal to our article about the subject. Now, the Forrest piece does seem to be using that signature as its main piece of evidence, so arguably there are only three sources. However claim that " none of the sources discuss "Wells being involved with AIDS reappraisal, beyond just signing a petition" is inaccurate. The Forrest article, the Vancouver Sun piece and the Seattlelest all talk about general AIDS denial. JoshuaZ 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

After a few go-arounds on editing disputes, tempers can get strained. Please be aware of the option to ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process. -- Ben 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to see the article be about Wells himself. Steve Dufour 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone asks for an outside opinion, then I suggest also offering Steve's alternative: User:Steve Dufour/sandbox Roger 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That version ignores the reception of Wells's ideas by the scientific community as a whole, it will never make it past the NPOV sniff-test. 151.151.21.101 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the facts that 20 years ago Jonathan dedicated his life to destroying evolution and that evolution is still here kind of speak for themselves. :-) Steve Dufour 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A tangent

Not directly relevant to Wells but definitely of interest to anyone editing this article.

Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules By CORNELIA DEAN Published: February 12, 2007 in the New York Times.

It wrestles head on with the question of creationists working towards a secular degree that contradicts their religious views. David D. (Talk) 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an interesting article. Steve Dufour 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If Wells's personal views presented a problem to those profs giving him a PhD, I suspect that his greater problem was with the theology profs at Yale. I doubt that the dept. has any Moon followers. Roger 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought both sides had valid concerns. Steve Dufour 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Publisher sharing.

Regarding, this anon's reversion of my edit. Do people think the information should be there? My reasons for taking it out are I think well summarized in my edit summary. JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty irrelevant to me. i support the removal. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it serves any purpose. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Regnery Press publishes other concepts widely considered pseudoscience is highly relevent as to whether Wells's claims his ID ideas (published by Regnery Press) are good science have any basis in fact. It shows a pattern. For that reason alone it needs to be covered in not only this article but those of his books published by Regnery Press as well. 151.151.21.105 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this a) amounts to OR and b) is a weak argument. Random House publishes both science books and psuedoscience for example. Unless some notable independent sources has brought up the matter of the publisher as evidence it should stay out. JoshuaZ 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is already in the article:Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationsim And The Constitution Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey. Washington University Law Quarterly, page 79-80] Doesn't anyone around here bother to read the articles? It's a reliable source that says exactly what the section you removed says, so it's going back in. 151.151.73.168 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not every bit of possible sourced info should go in or is relevant. In fact, even Brauer and Forrest only note the matter as a parenthetical. That doesn't mean we need to add conspiratorial notes here. JoshuaZ 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I went and read the cite again and found myself even more interested in the AIDS denial folks. Wells, er, Dr Wells promotes himself as a biologist I believe and the DI portrays him as someone with lofty scientific credentials who practically walks on water, so I think the fact he has what may be a minor part in the AIDS denial movement is well worth mentioning. We might argue over how best to present it but I think it's very relevant, yet not as significant as his ID activities. Mr Christopher 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Unless the article is asserting some significance to the shared publisher, it shouldn't be here. As it is, the article seems to be implying some sort of guilt by association, without actually coming out and saying it. eaolson 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read my own comments and realized I wasn't clear, the part about the publisher seems out of place and conspiratorial. Wells' role in the AIDS denial is what I was giving significance to with my comments above. No doubt Wells runs with and/or associates with lots of crack pots but I think we should avoid any conspiracy assertions. Mr Christopher 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Christopher well summarizes what appears to be a developing consensus that the fact that Wells's publisher also published a book on aids reappraisal is not sufficiently relevant to merit inclusion in the article. I'm going to revert back to JoshuaZ's last version. ... Kenosis 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That being said, the material that should not be in this article would shine in AIDS denial related article(s). Mr Christopher 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) One more thing, anonymous IP guy, have you read Regnery Press yet? Mr Christopher 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have, and one POS at a time please. I still fail to see how the fact that both of Wells books are published by one of the most prolific publishers of pseudoscience in the US is not relevant to this article. Particularly since Wells's notability completely hinges on his promotion of views that the science community calls pseudoscience. Seems like a no-brainer to me. 151.151.73.168 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Regenery self-identifies as publishing "conservative" books. At this point, there happen to be three more or less pseudoscientific notions which have wormed there way into American conservatism (HIV denial, global warming skepticism (in some of its forms), and ID). Regenery is publishing in that context, not in a context of wanting to publish pseudoscience. And in any event if it even seems so minor that Forrest put it in parentheticals it can't be that important. JoshuaZ 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an alternative without all this irrelevant junk: User:Steve Dufour/sandbox. Actually, I wouldn't mention AIDS at all. All Wells did was to sign a petition. Who cares? If Wells signed a petition either for or against the Iraq War, would you want to include that also? Roger 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I hope we can put you and our new anon in a room together for an hour or two and see what happens. Removing all criticism and all involvement in other pseudoscience is not NPOV, we've been over this. Stop trying to push your whitewashed version. It isn't any better, indeed is arguably worse than the version pushed by our anon. JoshuaZ 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve's version is not whitewashed. It includes dropping out of school, going to jail, joining Moon's church, attacking Darwinism, and even signing that silly AIDS petition. It sticks to the facts, and gives you all the reasons you need to conclude that Wells is outside the mainstream. It just skips all the name-calling, innuendo, and unsupported attacks. Roger 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wells went to jail as part of an ideological issue. As to joining the Unification Church, I'm not sure why you presume that including it is somehow evidence of not whitewashing (is there something wrong with him being a member of the church?). The matters that are whitewashed are threefold: 1) as already discussed he have multiple reliable sources who seem to think he did a bit more for the HIV/AIDS denialists than just sign a petition 2) Steves version discusses "Darwinism" in the vague DI-POV and indeed is written in that POV 3) That version does not adequately describe the scientific reaction to Wells's ideas. I don't see anywhere in that "name-calling", "innuendo"(except possibly in the now removed sentence about the publisher) or "unsupported attacks". JoshuaZ 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Referring to Evolution as "Darwinism"

The article continues to say that Wells is opposed to evolution. This misstates his views. Even the extremely critical book review that Guettarda just added concedes, "Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution." [36] In my opinion, the article should stick to the facts about Wells's professed beliefs. Roger 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Statement is well sourced. JoshuaZ 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on my somewhat rude remark. The statement seems to be an accurate summary of the cited sources. You continue to use stating just the "facts" to mean, stating things in yours and Wells POV. Furthermore in this case you have not provided an alternate wording to consider. JoshuaZ 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement is not an accurate summary of the cited sources, because I've just showed you that one of those sources says just the opposite. Roger 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the link provided, it's very misleading to use part of it out of context this way. This is about the use of the term "evolution" versus "Darwinism". Friday (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your quote is out of context. The full quote is "In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against “Darwinism”, which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn’t exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution." Regarding your spelling correction, note that I while I appreciate such edits some users do not so in general it is a good idea to avoid it unless you know the user in question doesn't mind. JoshuaZ 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Wells draws a distinction between evolution and Darwinism. Some people think that there is a legitimate distinction and some don't, I guess. It doesn't matter. But if Wells thinks that he is waging war against "Darwinism" and not "evolution", then the article should say so. Saying that he is opposed to evolution is falsely putting words in his mouth.

I put the quote in the Wells article, but someone ripped it out already. Roger 21:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was misleading, as I explained in the edit summary and on the talk page. Certainly, Wells' own words about his beliefs are fair game for the article. Quotes from articles, taken out of context in a misleading way, are not. Friday (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a distinction: There's no shortage of sources that show the former is what ID proponents mean while the latter is what they say. We won't be repeating their rhetoric here for them. FeloniousMonk 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Roger's use of the quote out of context is misleading. Roger's explanation is as farcical as Wells' pretended (yet undefined) differentiation between what he calls Darwinism and evolution. Same shit, different day. •Jim62sch• 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What Wells opposes is not "all aspects of evolution" but certain aspects. We need a table listing the various aspects of evolution which partisans accept or oppose. Should this table go in Politics of evolution, or what? --Uncle Ed 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A splendid argument which promotes the very well documented rhetoric of Wells and his Discovery Institute cronies conflating Darwinism and evolution. There is literally no shortage of sources that show the DI crew (which Wells is a prominent part) is vehemently opposed to evolution, one only need read the Wedge Document, and that when they say Darwinism they mean evolution. Arguing to use their rhetoric supporting their (very tiny) minority view as fact is to promote a particular viewpoint to the detriment of WP:NPOV, something that will never fly here. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point, FM. If by "Darwinism" they simply mean Evolution, then we need to describe this conflation somehow. I'm a bit confused by it myself.

Do the DI crew claim that Darwinism is somehow differt from Evolution? If so, what's the difference? If not, I wonder if there's any point having a separate Darwinism article. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is not saying the Evolution and Darwinism are the same; he is arguing that he has done original research to show that Wells means Evolution when he says Darwinism. His only cited support is the Wedge Document, which was not written by Wells and does not necessarily express his opinions.

The word Darwinism has been in common use for 100 years. It is not for WP to exterminate a word, or to perform a word-substitution on someone's stated beliefs. If there is a mainstream book review that criticizes Wells's use of the word "Darwinism", then perhaps that could be put in a criticism section or in the WP article on the book, but it should not be used to put words in Wells's mouth.

To give an analogy, suppose that Hillary Clinton says that he favors "health care reform", but her critics cite some obscure political rant written by some political ally to claim that when she says "health care reform", she really means "socialized medicine". Would then a WP article on Hillary Clinton lead off with a statement that she favors "socialized medicine"? No, that would be biased. A section on criticism of her health proposal might make the argument that she is really favoring something different from what she says, but a description of her beliefs should use her terminology.

This insistence on mischaracterizing Wells's professed beliefs is just one example of the inaccurate, poorly sourced, and negatively biased material in this article. Roger 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When Wells says his objective is nothing less than to "defeat Darwinism" and publishes a book titled "Icons of Evolution", in which he discusses examples arguing that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid", potential confusion about what he means is self-created by Wells and is further verified by other third-party reliable sources, not manufactured by WP editors. ... Kenosis 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot understand what Wells is saying, then maybe you should not be editing the article. Roger 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP is not a free host for the public relations departments of organizations and individuals. Roger Schlafly's presumption that there is some unwritten paradigm that is capable of being understood here, that is somehow different from what Wells himself asserts, is ridiculous. We're responding to what Wells says, and what verifiable sources say about what Wells says. If Roger is attempting to say the what Wells says is not what he meant, then he should go publish a book or article about it and maybe we can refer to it in the WP article. ... Kenosis 19:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri)"If you cannot understand what Wells is saying, then maybe you should not be editing the article." That's simply too funny. Wells is not Einstein or Heisenberg or Kant: his ideas and his words are simplistic and require little more intelligence to understand than does the game of Fish. •Jim62sch• 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Ed and Roger (ID advocates apparently) claim that IDers do not oppose evolution per se and are not refering to evolution in their rants against "darwinism." They are merely repeating the spin of those promoting ID. There's a widely recognized ID canard: Set up a strawman that does not accurately reflect the real relationship between evolution and darwinism, then procede to tear it down in the knowledge that the ID audience will not know the difference. Doing so also helps achieve their goal of a "Big Tent" that leaves room for 'theistic evolutionists' (theists who accept 'guided' evolution) to join the ID movement. This rhetorically tactic is covered in this article about Wells's Discovery Institute colleague Phillip Johnson. [37] Also from some other articles: "As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest [38] "In [Berlinski's] latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Paul Gross Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.171 (talk • contribs)

[edit conflict]With regards to Darwinism/evolution...I don't want to be rude, but is it really that difficult to read the references before asking questions that have already been answered? Guettarda 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You presume that one can understand the references.  :) •Jim62sch• 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an ID advocate. I don't know about Ed. I am not arguing here bout Johnson and other IDers. I am merely arguing that a biography about Wells should describe his actual writings accurately, and leave criticism to a criticism section. I realize that Barbara Forrest and others hate Wells, and they have published various goofy conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks about IDers. They are just opinions. Unless she has some well-documented facts about the life of J. Wells, they don't belong here. Roger 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"goofy conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks" -- yes, Rog, you'd know about those -- wink, wink (a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat). But really, Rog, say no more, say no more -- we got your point. It's simply that your point is, well, vacuous, specious and not very convincing. •Jim62sch• 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to the fact that your & Ed's questions are already addressed in the references? Guettarda 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

References? What references? There are no references with Wells saying that he is opposed to evolution. There are just three ID-hating rants to support that first sentence. The first reference is a blog that says, "Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution.", and goes on to say that Wells distinguishes between Darwinism and evolution. The second is just a letter that criticizes terminology used by associates of Wells. The third is just an ad hominem attack on people who use the term "Darwinism".

I understand that there are a lot of evolutionists who hate Wells, but do the scurrilous attacks on him really have to begin in the first sentence? There is plenty of room for criticism elsewhere. Roger 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, just a second... Did I just correctly read this? RogerSchlafly is arguing here that "there are no references with Wells saying that he is opposed to evolution". And, in the very same submission, an assertion about "evolutionists who hate Wells". Is RogerSchlafly actually arguing here that, according to verifiable sources concerning Jonathan Wells, "evolutionism" is not to be equated with Darwinism? And what sources, other than advocates of intelligent design, might be saying this? ... Kenosis 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this directly relates to Jonathan Wells; he seems to be a pawn in the larger Evolution-creationism debate. But perhaps it would help if terms like Evolutionism and Darwinism were clarified. I daresay political advocates on opposite sides of the fence convey different meanings by these terms. They often "talk past each other" thereby. How about an article on Terms used in the creation-evolution debate - this could become a section of the creation-evolution controversy article. --Uncle Ed 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that it matters how Ed or I or FeloniousMonk prefers to use those terms. If I have personal opinions about it, I'll post them on my blog. This WP article is an article about J.Wells, and it should attempt to express his views. I don't think that it helps to say that people involved in a controversy might have terminological preferences. It is obvious. Roger 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved the Wells article from Jonathan Corrigan Wells to Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). This is for two main reasons: 1) Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) is more in keeping with Wikipedia convention. 2) Jonathan Wells is never identified as Jonathan Corrigan Wells in print, either by himself or by anyone else. FeloniousMonk 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's still pretty long a page name, but it sounds fine to me. Guettarda 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it too long, it is not very accurate. I do not think that Wells is primarily known as an intelligent design (ID) advocate. He is mainly known for his Icons book, that doesn't even discuss ID. Yes, his latest book discusses ID. (I haven't read it. ID is in the title, but the book appears to be mainly on Darwinism.) I think that it would be better to call Wells a Biologist, or maybe a Darwinism critic. He has a PhD in Biology and has written books on evolutionary biology, so I don't know why anyone would have a problem with calling him a biologist. Yes, he has some views that are outside the mainstream, but that doesn't disqualify him as a biologist. Roger 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He's demonstrably most notable as an ID proponent, period: 93,300 Google hits for "jonathan wells" + "intelligent design" vs. 36,900 hits on Google for "jonathan wells" + "biologist" vs. 77,400 hits for "jonathan wells" + biology No doubt due to the fact that he hasn't practiced biology, mainstream or otherwise, in some time, but rather has been writing ID articles and such. FeloniousMonk 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"[S]o I don't know why anyone would have a problem with calling him a biologist" - then maybe you should consult to extensive discussion higher up the page...you know, the one in which you participated. Guettarda 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where JoshuaZ said, "He isn't a biologist because all he has are two minors papers to his credit and his Ph.D. That doesn't make him a biologist." But that's not all he has. He has also written two biology books and he is mainly known for his writings and opinions about biology. Roger 08:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is accurate and neutral, and we do need something in his article title to distinguish him from the other Jonathan Wellses. He's not primarily known as a "writer", even though he has a well-known book out. And he is an advocate of ID.

It's better than Jonathan Wells (creationist) because the term "Creationist" carries too much baggage, because most Creationists are fundamentalists who believe life on earth is only 10,000 years old (they don't believe in fossils).

Good move, FM (tho' you might have discussed it first. ;-) --Uncle Ed 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> on the subject of what Wells is and what he is promoting, it's worth noting the Cato Institute describes him on their website as a "Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute".[39] Note they did not call him a biologist nor do they even mention Icons yet they do note that he is the "author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" So it would seem the editors here are not the only ones who view Wells' noteriety as being tied to intelligent design and the DI. If nothing else this suggests we are not making this stuff up. Mr Christopher 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is promoting a Cato speech by Michael Shermer against Intelligent Design. Apparently Wells was allowed to make some comments in disagreement. I don't know what this proves, except that Shermer and Wells have some disagreements about ID.

The page merely describes Wells in terms of his current affiliation and his latest book. That is a neutral and factual way of identifying people. I would be happy if WP did that. It does not. Instead it falsely describes his position based on some goofy theory that some associate of his is prone to use terminology in a deceptive manner. Roger 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments, Schlafly and you'll understand what I am suggesting it "proves". Thanks in advance. Mr Christopher 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)