Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Argument from authority

"Removed "pseudoscience" sentence. This man is a scientist with a PH.D. The citations listed articles from two other scientists." - JBFrenchhorn (talk · contribs)

Some perspective here. Kary Mullis has a nobel prize on top of his PhD, should we believe everything he says without question? David D. (Talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A PhD, particularly one explicitly gained for the sole purpose of "destroying Darwinism", does not make one a "scientist", nor preclude one from being a pseudoscientist, a category defined as "people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience." Wells has never worked as a scientist, nor taught science, so would not generally be considered one. But even if he were one, it would not preclude him from being a pseudoscientist as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

wells' dishonesty once again

Looks like Wells is busted lying once again, well if distorting and mischaracterizing legit research is considered lying (that's not considered lying by the Discovery Institute, it's how they operate). Wells is very good at this sort of propaganda. He's busted quickly this time, including by one of the investigators of the paper that he perverts. Read more http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/wells_says_something_stupid_ag.php or more http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/how-stupid-do-t.html Read Wells' Discovery Institute sponsored lies here http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/the_irrelevance_of_darwinian_e.html What a goofball! How best to include this latest controversy in a NPOV...Hmmm.... Angry Christian (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just summarise what Ian Musgrave said, and attribute it to him. It's easier to do that and then figure out where it fits in best. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal again

Wells was apparently one of many signatories to a letter to the editor (dated June 6, 1991) that states:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."

Why does this article, apparently with no other references, go beyond simply reporting this? -Exucmember (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because some people are grasping at straws to find anything to make Wells sound like a kook. Roger (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Two fairly short sentences is hardly "go[ing] beyond simply reporting this". And Schlafly, we have no need to do anything to make Wells "sound like a kook", he does a bang-up job of it all on his own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd suggest that Exucmember reads more carefully, there is another reference -- to a Vancouver Sun article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If Wells' own quotes make him sound like a kook, then just use them. The Vancouver Sun opinion article just says, "Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." This does not add any facts; it is just an opinion from someone who does not like Moonies. Roger (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I don't remember reading in WP:V that we need a quote from a person to establish facts about them, or that the source has to be sympathetic. We have WP:RSs, and that's all we need. So quit your tendentious whining. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote my entry below before seeing the last two comments above, and I'm not going to rewrite or change it.

My interest in this article is low. My views on evolution and on God are roughly opposite to those of Wells, so I have no desire to "defend" him. Also, the editors of this article seem to have a hard time cooperating, and certain editors (critics of Wells) seem not even to be able to restrain themselves from being rude and uncivil. Nevertheless, it would be good for all of Wikipedia's articles to be encyclopedic, so I'll offer my opinion.

I haven't even looked at this article for about 6 months, and I have to say that it's incomparably better than it was. It's no longer the case that any intelligent reader would immediately see the strong bias.[I see now that some of the most egregious problems were simply shuffled around] The question remains, however: If Wells is an obvious kook why not just let the facts speak for themselves instead of going overboard and making it sound like a biased attack?

The Vancouver Sun article mentions Wells only in passing and establishes only two things. First, it shows that it is not objective toward Wells by being derogatory. Second, it claims that Wells had "joined the AIDS denialist camp." That's it, nothing more. In the absence of any claim anywhere that Wells has done something more than sign the petition, it seems likely his signing was the basis for Peter McKnight's claim in the newspaper article. This newspaper article adds no factual information.

The only thing we have is that Wells signed a petition 17 years ago. Why not just state the facts instead of excessive characterization which may come across as biased?

In any case, the facts regarding Wells and AIDS deserve a mention according to the citable factual information, but we don't have much, and it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction! -Exucmember (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church position on evolution

Are we all sure that the Unification Church is opposed to the theory of Evolution?

• Rev. Moon: "I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it."

I checked the first of a few footnotes and found this - which seems to say just the opposite of the article text:

• evolution[2][3][4] which is opposed by the Unification Church,[35][36][37][38]

I think that the church accepts some aspects of evolution, such as the gradual appearance of new species over hundreds of millions of years. It does not make the sweeping condemnation that Young Earth Creationists make. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context Ed:[1]

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.

This appears to be a form of progressive creationism. Further up in the same essay Moon repeats the tired old 'acceptance of evolution leads to immorality' objection:

People who advocate the theory of evolution say that there is not much difference between the basic makeup of men and animals. What they are saying is that the desires of the mind are illusory, and therefore, that there is no such thing as an absolute standard of conscience. In other words, they feel we are only made of material, and that there is no such thing as a permanent ideal. If we are only animals then we are no better than any animal, and there is no room for a permanent standard. Therefore, no permanent quality of value can exist.

That Moon and the UC are creationist & anti-evolution is prima facie in the cited references. Exactly what form these creationist views are would involve WP:OR to adduce & are in any case not overly relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn's statement is simply false. Footnote 35 includes the statement by Moon "I don't deny the process of evolution in development." And Moon has said a lot about this and every other topic; the totality of his views and their relevance in his overall worldview is what's important, not some cherry-picked statements. Footnotes 36 and 38 are authored by critics unfamiliar with the whole body of Unification Theology. Footnote 37 is a member trying to claim guidance by a senior Unificationist philosopher. Ed is right. The teachings of the Unification Church take no position on evolution. There is no mention of it in Divine Principle, except as implied by Divine Principle's clear respect for science. The misleading footnotes and the assertion which is unjustified need to be removed. Btw, let me say again that I don't share Wells' views on God or evolution (I believe in the scientific consensus), but I think biographies of living persons that are hatchet jobs like this article are a disgrace to Wikipedia.

Why do you seem to think just presenting the facts is unacceptable? In my view this tends to undermine the credibility of the article. Any intelligent reader can easily see a hatchet job. Why not just present the facts and let the fringe theories and theorists look bad of their own accord? When editors here subject intelligent design and its advocates to exaggerated, derisive diatribe, it alienates intelligent readers. Hrafn, I would have discussed this with you privately in a completely non-confrontational way, but your email is not enabled, so I have no choice but to say it here (with the implicit criticism plainly visible). -Exucmember (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think misrepresentation is "unacceptable" -- Moon did not baldly state "I don't deny the process of evolution in development." He said "I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but..." and made a whole host of caveats that completely undercuts his original statement -- as I have already documented above. This is not a forum for a lengthy debate on Unification theology. We have WP:RSs for UC's opposition to evolution, unless you can find ones that say otherwise, without massive equivocation that renders them toothless, I would suggest that this issue is closed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Your interpretive OR that Moon's "caveats ... completely undercut his original statement" leaves us with an inadequate source for the text's assertion that the Unification Church opposes evolution.

2. Footnote 36 (Coyne) does not state that the Unification Church opposes evolution. It says opposition is found in many corners, including the Unification Church, which means either the church as a whole or opposition among some of its members or opposition by one member who made it his cause. To imply that Coyne is a RS that the Unification Church opposes evolution is dishonest. I am removing the source.

3. Footnote 38 (Shermer) cites Wells' statement "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me..." as justification for his claim that Moon assigned Wells the task, a baseless conclusion, which makes him unrelable. Shermer cites Wells' statement as meaning something other than what it means! I am removing the source.-Exucmember (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. While the "original statement" is undercut, Moon's array of anti-evolution "caveats" are not. The 'evolution but ... [statements that completely gut evolution]' claim is a frequently used creationist canard.
2. "Church founder Sun Myung Moon has frequently condemned darwinism for giving God no role in the history of life." I think that's fairly clear.
3. Shelmer clearly indicates that Wells was "chosen" by Moon to enter a Ph.D. programme in Biology which Wells saw as "prepar[ing] for battle" on the issue. Is it conceivable that Wells did so without Moon being aware of, and supporting this goal. Shermer clearly doesn't think so, hence his stating that Moon "assigned Wells the task of destroying evolution."

I find your arguments to be baseless and tendentious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Still interpretive OR on your part; he has made many other statements. There is nothing in Divine Principle about evolution or Darwin. Nevertheless, I left the citation, as it is pertinent.

2. Like the first sentence of this poor quality article, you seem not to be familiar with the history of the term "Darwinism."

3. He is dead wrong. He is not reliable.

What value is there in criticizing my arguments as tendentious, when yours are equally tendentious? --Exucmember (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement cited is clearly opposed to the scientific understanding of evolution – REVEREND SUN MYUNG MOON SPEAKS ON OUR STANDARD March 1, 1981

There must be something outside evolution that can supply creative energy. It is true that development occurred between the lowest and the highest stages, but it did not happen automatically. Each stage was the result of a design and input of additional energy. Evolutionists don't want to recognize that. When they recognize that creative energy was put in, then they have to acknowledge a universal consciousness that provided the know-how. When you talk about man's conscience then you have to recognize a universal truth that ties into it. Thus, you have to recognize God.

Whether or not this still sets out the official position, Wells' statement shows that he was convinced by Moon's words and other studies to battle against "Darwinism", which he identifies with natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, genetics and common descent, opposing all aspects of evolution except what he calls "microevolution". Of course the history of the term "Darwinism" is interesting, and what aspect of that do you think Hrafn is unfamiliar with? . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the Unification Church position on evolution, then, might be described as "progressive creationism" as indicated above by an ex-member of the church. It certainly fits in with what I think the church teaches (and I've been a member my entire adult life).

The NCSE, an excellent resource on the topic of Evolution and Creationism, quotes Frank J. Sonleitner at length, but to be brief I will use internal links, bullet points and ellipses to emphasize what I feel are the relevant points. (If you need the full context, please follow the external link.)

• Thomson ... indicated that there were three meanings for the word evolution.
  1. The first meaning is "change over time" and is based on the fact that there are sequences of fossils in the geologic strata. ... Almost everyone accepts this: ... all progressive creationists, including Pandas. The only people who reject it are the 6 day (young earth) creationists ...
  2. ... "all organisms are related by descent through common ancestry" ... is accepted as a fact by all evolutionists and most progressive creationists. ... Pandas apparently believe that the designer made each successive form anew although it might have made use of the blueprints of previous organisms (Pandas, p. 42.) Thus Pandas is rejecting the law that "all life comes from life."
  3. The third meaning refers to the "explanatory mechanism" of evolution. The Darwinian mechanism (mutation, genetic recombination, reproduction, and natural selection) ... also is accepted by most non-Darwinians evolutionists and progressive creationists for microevolution. ... [2]

I don't like to do WP:OR, so I hope my fellow contributors can tell me (A) whether the Unification Church view fits into the progressive creationism slot and (B) whether progressive creationism is opposed to evolution.

Also, when we say "opposed to evolution" do we have in mind all three meanings given by Thomson (as cited by Sonleitner), or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't like to do OR, are you asking us to do it for you? ;) The resource is a bit elderly, from 2004, and there has been a lot said about Pandas since then. You miss out the end of the third option, "This theory is accepted by Darwinian evolutionists and some theistic evolutionists. It also is accepted by most non-Darwinians evolutionists and progressive creationists for microevolution. Non-Darwinian evolutionists postulate other mechanisms for macroevolution, but so far none have been proposed that have any scientific validity." Where the Unification Church view fits depends on some factors. They seem to reject Darwinian explanations, though that itself has several meanings. That would imply a position in the general anti-evolution movement, like others accepting "microevolution" while demanding some divine mechanism for "macroevolution", a term much favoured by creationists and used flexibly to depict whatever they reject. Do they postulate any mechanism, or just say God did it? For the article, we really need a good secondary source rather than trying to interpret the Church's documents. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Unification Church takes no position on evolution. The only relevant position is the strong rejection of certain literal interpretations of the Bible including 6 literal days of creation, which would preclude young earth creationism. Members have a range of views, including Wells, who claims to have found the inspiration for his position in comments by Sun Myung Moon. -Exucmember (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, as a UC member, there is no contradiction between God as the Creator and anything in science because God first created the principles of science and then used them to create the Universe. Since the whole process was His there was no need for Him to make any special interventions at any point. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

opinion and advice

Seeing this listed on the noticeboard for Bio, it appears to me that an emphasis on the evidence for the SPOV on darwinism, and aids, is altogether redundant. The article here links to the articles on those subjects, which is quite sufficient. The excessive amounts of quotations attacking his view on these subjects are overemphasis, as is the excessive length of the quotations from them opposing him, when the material is on the web in full. I have edited accordingly. the nature of his views is clear enough. Even from a SPOV, it is a more effective presentation when it does not look grievously unbalanced. DGG (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Most of WP's articles on creationism, ID, etc. could also use some work. That is not something that I am very interested in however. I only pay attention to Jonathan's article because he is a fellow Unification Church member. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. The amount of POV quotes against Jonathan Wells is excessive. One does not need to bludgeon the reader over the head in such a way that it becomes obvious that the article is no longer neutral on the life and writings of Jonathan Wells. This point, by the way, is not limited to the Wells article. It's something that occasionally surfaces when writing the biographies of living persons. By all means, include notable (and cited) criticism from reliable sources. I find them useful. But for goodness sake, it should be done judiciously. One needs to be careful about not creating a coatrack article (see WP:COATRACK) in which, nominally, the subject of the article is about the life of the author, but instead turns into something else entirely. J Readings (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW the opening sentence says that Wells is a "disbeliever in evolution." Strictly speaking we don't know for sure what he really believes, just what he writes and says. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've tweaked the first paragraph to incorporate his statement about "destroying "Darwinism" and showing that what they're opposing is the scientific consensus. As I'm sure they'd agree. And of course WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ require us to show the majority view of Wells's views. Agree that the life of the author in itself doesn't need that particular context, but the notability of the author is entirely due to his extreme minority views which have to be shown in compliance with policy. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made an improvement to the wording. And Wells knew he was going against the scientific mainstream when he decided to do what he's doing. I'd say that should be noted with about the same weight as an article on a socialist or libertarian whould say that that person is taking a position against the political mainstream. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gegenheimer's website

I removed all references to the Peter Gegenheimer website. The most important reason is that it appears to be a self-published source. Regardless of who Gegenheimer is, we cannot use its material in the biographies of living persons. According to WP:SPS, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's is not a self-published source in the sense WP:SPS or you mean. I agreeWikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources obviously precludes "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" as reliable sources. But An Introduction to Intelligent Design is part of Molecular Biosciences program at The University of Kansas-Lawrence Evolution Homepage and is used as reference in the course syllabus. If The University of Kansas sees fit to host it as a reference source for students it meets the criteria as an academic resource.

Even if you could successfully argue that it's just another self-published source, which I would continue to say it isn't, Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and Peter Gegenheimer is a Associate Professor, Biochemistry & Biophysics at the Department of Molecular Biosciences at University of Kansas-Lawrence. Per WP:V he meets the bar as a "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Odd nature (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. No. The source needs to be removed immediately. There is no editorial oversight involved with this personal homepage. It is not published by The University like a university press publication. If there is evidence that it passed through the legal department and fact checking departments before publication, then it would not be self-published. That's why we generally accept academic journal articles, newspapers, and books -- they are generally peer-reviewed to maintain some form of accuracy. There is no way we can tell if there is any attention being paid here to fact checking based on our reliable source standards. Most importantly, and this is key, you're looking at self-published sources from the wrong angle. We're dealing with third parties here. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. It does not read "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "frequently". It reads "never". But if you're adamant about presenting this self-published source on the biography of a third-person, we can always ask the Reliable Source noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard what they think. I don't mind at all. In the meantime, I'm going to remove it to be safe. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Odd nature: This is not a self-published source. This is part of the departmental curriculum, and is published on the departmental website. This falls squarely outside the domain of WP:SPS. I have posted on the reliable sources noticeboard. If someone experienced in assessing the quality of sources sees fit, then he or she can revert me. But I think you should probably refrain from doing so. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I look forward to reading what they have to say, too. Though, to be honest, it probably would have been a good idea to wait for a reply from them before quickly re-adding the questionable material. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have a question for Odd nature and siℓℓy rabbit. You both claim that this website is part of a "departmental curriculum". Where specifically does Peter Gegenheimer say that on his website? I've read his website and haven't been able to find it yet. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is still a hatchet job

This article is still a hatchet job, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Any intelligent reader can immediately see that it is highly biased, undercutting what should be a very easy task - to present the facts about Wells and let him shoot himself in the foot. I wonder whether certain editors may actually prefer to make the defense of evolution look bad. This article certainly does that! -Exucmember (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a "hatchet job" with whitewash is no improvement, which the removal of the HIV/AIDS denial activity amounts to. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This attack on the article is still fallacious

This article gives WP:DUE weight to the vast majority of scientific sources -- who are of the opinion that Wells is a dishonest creationist whose claims are without any scientific basis. Nobody in the scientific community takes his claims seriously, so the article should not give the impression that any of them do. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The following quote is an example of original synthesis (see WP:SYN).

Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community.

Unless the scientific community (and who are these people?) specifically address Wells' arguments, then we cannot give the impression that they know who he is. That would be synthesis--taking fact one, combining it with fact two, in order to arrive at previously unpublished assertion three.

I'm just coming to this article from the BLP noticeboard where I notice that this article could use a little work. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That piece was more than a little cludgy. I've replaced it by a paraphrase (with cite) of a prominent history of the ID movement, which summarises the scientific reviews of Icons. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

References

This response to my critique is fallacious

Hrafn has not responded to the fact that the article is highly biased throughout; rather he - ironically - uses a fallacious argument by implying that I want the article to say the scientific community takes his claims seriously. Again, my point is that the over-the-top hatchet job done on Wells in this BLP is not necessary. Just present the facts. Have a criticism section. Don't try to pass off overblown diatribe as factual or NPOV. -Exucmember (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exucmember: the scientific community (and particularly the section of it that has expertise in evolutionary biology) is itself scathing in its criticism of Wells. AFAIK, there is little or no positive, or even neutral, commentary from that community. It is therefore entirely consistent with WP:DUE that the coverage of Wells casts him in a harsh light. This is not an "over-the-top hatchet job" -- it is merely an accurate reflection of the low opinion that scientists have of Wells. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The views that Wells puts forward come under NPOV: Pseudoscience, and relevant provisions of policy include NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. See in particular NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The majority views have to be shown in relevant sections, and neutrality is not achieved if the article structre has them segregated away in a "criticism section". . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this bias you're talking about, but I do see that you deleted sourced and relevant content, which I've now restored. Odd nature (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the scathing criticisms made by people in the scientific community reported in an encyclopedic manner, free from diatribe, exaggeration, name-calling, using citations which say one thing to support a different statement in the article, etc.

Neutral, uninvolved editors who saw the BLP notice have made specific suggestions (above and below) for how to remove some of the bias. -Exucmember (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would not be neutral to cast Wells in a harsh light. But it is perfectly acceptable to note that criticism of him has been scathing.

We need not say that the scientific community is "right" about Wells (that would be taking sides). Nor must we say that there are just as many defenders as critics, if indeed the proportion is more like 5 friends and several dozen enemies.

However, the "due weight" guideline is intended to prevent misleading people into thinking a person or idea is more popular (or unpopular) than he or it really is. There is a huge article on flat earth ideas, but no one thinks the size of this article has any bearing on whether anyone since Ptolemy really believed in anything but a spherical earth.

It doesn't hurt neutrality at all to explain a man's life (or ideas) at length - provided we simply take care not to endorse them ourselves (as writers) or hint that scholars at large endorse them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV check still needed

This article has improved tremendously recently with the help of outside editors. Previously, there were outright violations of Wikipedia guidelines, references which did not support claims in the article, and some phrasing and arguments that were so obviously biased it would have been obvious to any careful reader coming to Wikipedia. (It actually made "Intelligent Design" critics look bad.)

I only have two remaining concerns, both relatively minor, but I would like to ask neutral editors to take a look at the whole article with a fresh pair of eyes. My more important concern is immediately above, and I am a little disappointed that there has been no response at all after one week - except to tersely criticize the POV check tag as misuse and remove it again, even though I have asked repeatedly for it to remain until all the issues have been addressed, which they have not.

My other concern is that quoting a one-time opponent in a debate against Wells as saying he "clearly lied" seems like a stretch for a BLP, and just looks petty. If a quotation could unambiguously demonstrate that he clearly lied, that might possibly be important enough to include in an article like this, but the citation only proves that his debate opponent claimed he "clearly lied." So what? How do we know the opponent is correct in his claim? I just think it makes the authors of the article look petty, like they're trying too hard to attack Wells. -Exucmember (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that Wells lied. Still, we need to check sources carefully. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just what is the lie? That Wells claimed to be objective when he actually has some religious beliefs? If he really "clearly lied", then it should be easy to say what the lie was. Roger (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That there is a scientific basis for his beliefs? That he had any intention of paying off on the $250,000 bet when the conditions were met? There are a number of clear lies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, do you want Wikipedia itself to say that Wells lied about something? Or even multiple things? Or would you prefer to report that SOMEONE has accused him of lying?

If it's the former, then I question whether that desire would conform to our NPOV policy. I myself would prefer to say something like:

• Wells said X. A critic (place name here) said that X is not true and that Wells lied about X. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe it clear that he lied, but it's probably best to have something like that. We should be able to find reliable critics' name and reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

I agree with the AIDS denialists that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, just like rattlesnakes are not the sole cause of rattlesnake bites. I am not sure of Wells's exact position on this but I think it should be more clearly explained in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, both primary and secondary, say Wells signed a list of people denying the current scientific consensus that AIDS is caused by HIV. Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:V state the article should simply state just that. What you personally believe is neither here nor there for Wikipedia or this article. Odd nature (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting my opinions be included in the article, just that Wells's be made more clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what Wells' position is in any detail. All we know is that he signed a petition in 1991 calling for "reappraisal of the existing evidence for this hypothesis": that "HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS". The article should state the facts. Critics have called this "AIDS reappraisal" and "AIDS denialism", so one of these two labels has to be used to be concise in the section heading. Two of the three cited critics, including the only one that has more than a passing mention (having some substantial discussion of the issues) call it "AIDS reappraisal". "Reappraisal" is the word actually used in the petition. Why would we use the harsher, minority recharacterization of a critic rather than the majority characterization of critics which agreed with the original word, if we're interested in being objective, accurate, and encyclopedic? -Exucmember (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cut this. The section presented no evidence - no sources - that Well's AIDS denialism - if that is what it is - is at all notable and relevant to his biography. Not every fact relating to his life and career belongs here: only those secondary-sourceable parts. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite includes:

• The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis website
• "Undercover at the Discovery Institute", Seattlest (September 8, 2006).
• "Aids 'denialism' gathers strange bedfellows", Vancouver Sun (June 17, 2006).
• Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey. "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism And The Constitution", Washington University Law Quarterly (Volume 83, Number 1, 2005.).

That's just want I was able to find, and what was referenced. There are reliable secondary sources about it, making it worthy of mention and having relevance. C56C (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Coatracking

While I've attempted to clean up some coatracking, I can still spot a few major instances where we define terms in an off-topic manner to paint Wells in a bad light. For example, the AIDS denialism section doesn't talk about Wells signing the petition more than what the scientific community think of him. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The piece you removed was not coatracking. 'Darwinism' was (past tense) Darwin's original thesis of Evolution by Natural Selection. 'Darwinism' is not (present tense) any current -scientific theory, but rather a strawman misrepresentation of modern evolutionary biology (often with just about any other scientific discovery that creationists don't like thrown in as well). The article needs to explain this, so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to Wells' misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's unacceptable, per WP:SYN. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some more examples of 'Coatracking'? I don't see any. His position on AIDS is significant because he is a biologist whose scientific claims (as with ID) have been harshly attacked by other biologists. It gives the reader a broader understanding of where he stands as an academic. I agree it should be expanded, but removing it and adding tags isn't the best way to approach this. We66er (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His position on AIDS maybe significant, but the guilt-by-association isn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre (not "Spectre" -- sorry about that) on this particular issue. We really need to avoid original synthesis in articles. It creates more problems than it solves. If there's a reliable source that directly links Wells with the above, then we should talk about it on this page. J Readings (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't synthesis as Wells is one of "Johnson, Dembski, and their associates" as he is, along with Dembski, a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture, which Johnson is Program Advisor of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is right on track here. The statement "and their associates" means at the very least Behe and Wells. And note that she's actually using Wells' words in that statement. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking at this footnote again, I'll concede the point that it's probably not original synthesis. Thanks for the clarification, J Readings (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if there isn't synthesis, there's definitely guilt by association, which BLPSTYLE prohibits. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The aids stuff seems notable to me - might need a slight reword. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there a secondary source cited that discussed, or even mentioned, his AIDs denialism? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His stance on AIDS is relevant because 1) he a biologist and AIDS is related to that field, 2) AIDS denialism is something the Moonies doctrine supports (he is a Moonie and was funded by Moon), 3) other Discovery Institute members signed the petition as well, 4) he uses AIDS as an example of what evolution can't explain (Footnote 94 "this does nothing to help humans suffering from AIDS").

Moreover, Wells' AIDS denialism has been mentioned in the press. Such as, The Vancouver Sun "AIDS 'DENIALISM' GATHERS STRANGE BEDFELLOWS" June 17, 2006 ( http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0cb194b-51d3-4140-88f7-e4099445c554 Link])

Thus, it is completely relevant to include in a biography about his beliefs and work. C56C (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this it, though? A small mention in The Vancouver Sun and a small footnote quote from Wells (with some guilt by association with the Moonies thrown on top), thus creating an entire section on this issue? It still seems a little odd that we're placing so much weight on this topic. How much has Wells written about AIDS? Has he published entire papers on the subject? Book chapters? Have journalists repeatedly covered his views on this? If he's written exclusively on this topic (and we have reliable third-party corroboration), I could understand why we have an entire section devoted to it. If he hasn't, it doesn't make much sense why we need to highlight this topic over other potential topics. I'm asking at this stage. What do we have? J Readings (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite includes:

• The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis website
• "Undercover at the Discovery Institute", Seattlest (September 8, 2006).
• "Aids 'denialism' gathers strange bedfellows", Vancouver Sun (June 17, 2006).
• Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey. "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism And The Constitution", Washington University Law Quarterly (Volume 83, Number 1, 2005.).

That's just want I was able to find, and what was referenced. No, Wells hasn't published papers on it. He has only published three papers his whole life. The stuff might be merged with "background" if it isn't expanded. There are reliable secondary sources about it, making it worthy of mention and having relevance. C56C (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "Moonie doctrine" could support AIDS denialism since "Moonie doctrine" was written in the 1950s, long before AIDS was discovered. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been able to locate only one AIDS denialist in the Unification Movement, and his PhD is not in science but in theology. Rev. Moon claims to be a "very scientific man" and has called God the "first scientist". In fact, one reason Moon's theology textbook gives against a literal resurrection is that it would be unscientific; a similar reason is given in rebuttal to traditional Christian theology's notion of Jesus "coming on the clouds". --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd thing

The odd thing about this article is that Wells is mainly known for writing Icons of Evolution and there are only 3 or 4 sentences about that. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I LOLd. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution has a whole article to itself. It is hardly surprising that only a brief summary of this is included in this article, per WP:SUMMARY. If you think more from that article should be included, you're welcome to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about merging the two articles? Everything said about Icons is also about Wells since it is the major expression of his life work. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please merge this into the article on the book. There aren't enough sources for a biog. There are currently no less than 5 refs to the NN website, which is not RS and probably wrong anyway. It gives his dob as around 1956 contradicting the other unreliably sourced material saying that he was a university student in the early 1960s. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion started off by complaining about the lack of overlap with Icons, so it seems that the most relevant potential "good reason" for merging is inapplicable: that of "overlap" -- see WP:MERGE#Merging, and none of the others seem applicable. Is there any reason for merging other than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT of this article? Wells (not just his book) seems to have generated a wealth of non-trivial coverage (including both The Creationists, and Creationism's Trojan Horse) -- so "lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" does not seem to be an issue (per WP:ACADEMIC). I suspect a merger would be a very hard sell. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that the articles will not be merged. I took another look at Icons and putting the two together would create a really long article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not if we followed normal procedure and dispensed with all the stuff irrelevant to his notability. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Often a person is significant for the views they hold, more than anything else. For example, Richard Dawkins is primarily known for his espousal of atheism. Of course, views are generally explained in great detail in books, especially if there is a wealth of supporting documentation such as argument and/or evidence.

Readers can be curious about what motivates an author. Wells, of course, was quick to let the cat out of the bag; he wants to "destroy Darwinism". Other writers on the origins debate are harder to pin down. What is PZ Meyers about, for example? I've heard the WP has been censoring his militant atheism for some reason. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From the article it seems like Wells has been working at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for the last 10 years to "destroy Darwinism." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well what else has he been doing? Except spending a bit of time in aids denialism, but that is clearly not his main line.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope he finds time to spend with his family and take a vacation once in a while. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article already notes his work as a "Unification Church marriage expert". If you have more WP:RS info on his activities beyond "destroying Darwinism", then you should bring them to the table. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs to NNDB

Having checked, I am sure that NNDB is not a reliable source for this biography. So I am going to delete all material that relates to it. This may leave the article looking thin. Sorry in advance for that but it's not a good idea to use this source in BLPs. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It shouldn't be there. We66er (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unification theology

Does this edit mean that someone is prepared to add some actual content about his work as a "Unification theologian" to the main entry? As of now there is not one iota of information about his views on Unification theology. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that snide comment, PelleSmith. That edit, as you well know (because I told you so) was in response to you complaint that it was "Something that isn't important enough to mention in the lead of the entry". As far as "actual content", this edit was merely giving mention in the lead of this major chunk of material already in the article body:

In the 1970s Wells joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. He graduated from the church's Unification Theological Seminary in 1978 with a Masters in Religious Education.[10]

He continued his studies at Yale University, and in 1986 Wells earned a PhD in Religious Studies there.[citation needed] During this time he wrote extensively on Unification theology and taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary.[10] Wells has written on the subject of marriage within the Unification Church [11] and has been called a "Unification Church marriage expert" by church sources.[12] Wells was on the Board of Trustees of the Unification Theological Seminary until resigning in 1997.[13] ...

Of his early student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78), Wells said, "One of the things that Father [Reverend Sun Myung Moon] advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He later described that plan: "To defend and articulate Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."[18]

Wells stated that his religious doctoral studies at Yale, which were paid for by the Unification Church, [19] focused on the "root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine" and encompassed the whole of Christian theology within a focus of Darwinian controversies. He said, "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."[20]

Wells said that learning how to oppose Darwinism was his motive for seeking his second Ph.D. at Berkeley:

"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." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. [3]

And no, this is not an "epistemological genealogy of his anti-Darwinist beliefs" -- because the RSs to hand don't contain one. What they do contain is frequent mention of the influence of Unificationism on his anti-evolutionism and the close and public ties he has to that church. If you can find a RS detailing his theological reasoning, well and good. But the lack of such detail does not forbid us from mentioning what the RSs we do have (and Wells himself) give prominent mention to. 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not if those are irrelevant to his notability, as discussed extensively earlier. --Relata refero (disp.)

"frequent mention [in RSs] of the influence of Unificationism on his anti-evolutionism" (backed by Wells' own statements) = relevance. The "as discussed extensively earlier" did not come even close to providing unequivocal refutation of that relevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Readers are always interested in why an author supports or opposes a theory or policy. The motivation is relevant, because this gives one a clue as to their objectivity. (I oppose them to get power for myself; I support this to get money for myself.) The reasoning they supply is also important - and maybe more so in an encyclopedia. (I support them because feed and clothe starving third-world children. I oppose this because it has deadly side-effects; see references.)

Clearly Wells has a religious motivation for setting out to defeat "Darwinism". He might be a Creationist of some stripe and feel that the mainstream science has religious implications too adverse to ignore. (By the way, is he and does he?)

However, as an academic (and also as a popularizer of views of leading theorists) he has an obligation to provide facts and evidence to back up his arguments. I hope to see a summary of his motivation and reasoning in his bio, along with a comprehensive outline of his reasoning in either a section on his views or books; this outline could just as well go in the articles about those books - whichever is more convenient for the reader. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Name? John or Jonathan?

The title of the page is Jonathan Wells, but the lead is John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells. Do we have a source on his birth or legal name? His publications are under "Jonathan" and if this is his birth name there is no need to include "John." If this the other way around we need a source for his birth name. We66er (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"John Corrigan" appear to be his legal Christian names. Although he generally publishes as "Jonathan", he published Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism: The Argument to Design and his thesis, A Confocal Microscopy Study of Microtubule Arrays Involved in Cortical Retation During the First Cell Cycle of Xenopus Embryos as "John Corrigan Wells". I would therefore support retention of this information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside. In the Unification Church John the Baptist is considered to be a "bad guy" and King David's friend Jonathan a "good guy". That is probably why he uses the name Jonathan. (Saint Stephen, of course, is also a good guy.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this important?

"In 2005, Wells attended the Kansas evolution hearings, which were boycotted by mainstream scientists. There Wells testifed, "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence." When questioned about the age of the earth, he replied, "I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. ... But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence."[56]" Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think his appearance at these hearings is important -- as it was one of the most high-profile events in the ID vs evolution conflict. I'm not sure that the specific quote is particularly notable. It could however be considered emblematic of the ID 'emphatically-antievolution, ambiguous on the age of the Earth' position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to see the point of the quotes, maybe that could be explained more clearly. Could his attendence at the hearings be mentioned in another section? Or is it really important enough for its own section? Northwestgnome (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I got bold and took the quotes out. To me it seemed like original research to give the quotes when nobody else had commented on them. I also think it distracts the readers of the article. If some critic of Wells had commented on his statements about the age of the earth then that could be mentioned. I could be wrong about this however. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it was commented upon at the time -- but I can't track it down. Further, I can't see any real significance to it except in a context of placing multiple IDers obfuscation on this point side-by-side -- which is outside the remit of this article. So, unless and until somebody can come up with some earth-shattering significance for the quote, I'm happy to have it out of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the article's clearly distinguishing Wells' position from that of mainstream science, this quotation is very helpful to the reader in clearly distinguishing Wells' position from that of young earth creationists. Probably when most people think of creationism, they think of young earth creationism. Making this distinction is even more important in light of critics' assertion that ID and creationism are essentially the same thing. The purpose of the article is not only to criticize Wells; it should also inform the reader in other ways. Perhaps the quoted portion should be cut down to the main answer: "I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old." -Exucmember (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident>Except that, as he equivocates on the age of the Earth, Wells fails to distinguish his position from YEC. The full quote of his answer demonstrates this:

I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. But I'll tell you this, I used to-- I would have said, a few years ago, I'm convinced it's four-and-a-half billion years old. But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence.

Given that the truncated quote gives the impression of an unequivocal response to this, I think it is misleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To me the thing is that the quote is just given without telling why it is important, if it is. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out the quote, it was only one picked out from his entire testimony. Is there any evidence that someone else commented on this one point. I left the link so that people can check out the whole thing if they like. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving?

Should we keep the 'Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving' section? It doesn't assert notablity. We66er (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PCID is hardly a WP:RS, and the paper seems to have evoked no reaction (nor any attempt to present it as some sort of ground-breaking progress towards ID coming up with a research programme), so I would agree that it doesn't really address notability -- so I'd have no problems with its removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also suggested removing it, on the grounds that it makes the article harder for the average person, who might not have much interest in the topic, to read. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the two sections which discuss his minor papers. The papers themselves are mentioned at the end of the article for people who are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. If there are no sources talking about his publications there is no reason to mention them. Especially, in non-peer-reviewed publications. We66er (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He is noted for his advocacy of intelligent design. Not minor papers. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the TOPS paper is significant in that it's the only "real" ID publication. But yeah, I know...{{fact}} Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Community opinion?

What do you think of this sentence in the intro?:

The scientific community has been unimpressed by Wells's biological theses, which they view as a religiously motivated, weakly argued attack on the scientific consensus on biological evolution.[4][2]

I wouldn't think that most of the scientific community have taken the time to consider Wells's writings at all, much less form an opinion on them. On the other hand, it would be fine to say that Wells goes against the scientific community's views. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence months ago as an attempt to summarize some material, assuming that it would be revised and improved within hours. Steve is exactly right in his analysis. The sentence should be changed to reflect the shortcomings he points out. -Exucmember (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the second sentence of the article and has now evolved to: "Wells's views are not in agreement with the consensus of the scientific community on evolution." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The best thing about the sentence is that it exposes the non-scientific aspect of the complaints about Wells. They attack him not because of what he is saying but why he is saying it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest complaint against Wells is that, from a scientific point of view, what he says is complete and utter bollocks (and has been repeatedly ripped into little shreds for it). That his motivation for this dishonesty is 'lying for Moon' merely compounds this misbehaviour. That this behaviour is condoned by the Unification Church is indicative of a profound lack of intellectual integrity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. WP articles are supposed to have a NPOV. Roger (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the overwhelming majority scientific viewpoint, to which we must give due weight, he clearly tells lies about science. This is shown by numerous reliable sources, and we must not give "equal validity" to his pseudoscience. Whether these lies are theologically justified in some way is an issue for the Unification Church and in that way is beyond science. Except perhaps psychology, but we'd need a good source for that. . dave souza, talk 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wells does not believe in the things he is saying? If so that should be mentioned in the article. Redddogg (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea what he "believes". What I'm saying is that he states blatantly false things about the sources he cites, is told of the required correction, and continues to state the blatant falsehoods. Whether that's conscious "lying for Jesus" or a peculiar form of amnesia I've no way of judging. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is absurd. It makes a statement about how Wells "devoted his life", but the only source is someone with opposing views who does not even mention Wells. It uses quotes on the term "destroying Darwinism", as if it is Wells' term, but it is not. The source is a dead link. The paragraph gives a definition of Darwinism, but a footnote admits that it is not Wells' definition. The paregraph unnecessarily attempts to make distracting statements about evolution consensus views. The article should be about Wells, not the people who disagree with him. The article reads as a poor attempt as a hatchet job. Roger (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "devoted his life" item should be moved down out of the intro. A person is not noted for devoting his life. Redddogg (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject is absurd, making it difficult to have a non-absurd first paragraph. "[D]estroying Darwinism" does seem to be Wells' term; Darwinism is used as a buzzword for macro-evolution by most of the ID crowd, even though they usually attempt to deny it if cornered, and the [scientific] consensus views on evolution are relevant to any discussion of Welles' views, per WP:FRINGE. It could use some more work, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be much better to give a neutral description of him, without launching into whether Darwinism is a proper term, or other distractions. Wells is best-known for a book that attacks popular biology textbooks. Just say that. The reader can make the obvious inference that he is outside the mainstream. Roger (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking it over, the section of the lead dealing with Icons has problems in that it's based on self-published descriptions rather than a reliable third party source, then going on to "criticisms" in a way that understates the majority view and gives "equal validity" to Wells' arguments. The introductory description is properly sourced and doesn't have that problem. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How about taking out the whole second sentence? I will give it a try. It will probably be reverted but I think the intro would be better off without it. Redddogg (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to oblige, several reliable secondary sources pick this out as a notable feature of Wells' career. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the information about his stated devotion of his life should be included in the article. I do think that that is kind of more about his state of mind, still important but not what should be mentioned in the intro. I'd guess that even Adolf Hitler's bio does not tell us about his state of mind or what he devoted his life to in the intro. Redddogg (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies, do note that Saint Paul covers the Road to Damascus in the lead, and see also WP:LEAD about summarising the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exis. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for mentioning the controversies in the lead. Just not the devoted his life thing. Almost anyone who has done something notable has devoted his or her life to doing it. Redddogg (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, it's a notable aspect of the main controversy that he devoted his life to "destroying Darwinism" before studying biology and becoming a cdesign proponentsist. I've modified the lead to make that clearer, hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 09:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I put some of the information about his Unification Church background into the article so I agree that it is very important that the article explain this in full detail. However he is noted for the books, articles, speeches, and debates not for his state of mind, his education, or his decision processes. BTW I checked out Saint Paul and I don't think it has the best intro. It kind of wanders around rather than tell us plainly why Paul is important. But then the public view of him is more complex than of Wells. Redddogg (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If a writer "tells lies about science", is it up to us as neutral contributors to be the arbiter of lies vs. truth? Should we not rather cite sources who make this judgment, rather than passing judgment ourselves?

This is a crucial issue of neutrality. But it should not cause us undue mental strain. Simply list each "lie" in the form of a claim. For example,

• Astronomer Chi Zhi writes in "Moon Holes" that the Moon is made of swiss cheese. Yet the consensus of astronomers and astronauts is that the moon is made of rock.

Note that we do not call Professor Zhi a liar. Nor have we given his idea "equal validity". Rather we have clearly marked it as being outside the scientific consensus. This ought to be enough. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And if a number of scientific experts express the opinion that the speaker could not have merely been mistaken, but that their claims were evidence of willful dishonesty, what then? An expert on a field can generally differentiate between positions within their field of expertise that are honest disagreement and tendentious misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that even a question? If one scientist calls another scientist a liar, then the format is:

• T. Ruth Teller called Chi Zhi "a liar" in peer reviewed article in Nature (186:74), on the grounds that no one with Zhi's expertise and access to data could possibly confuse moon dust with cheese.

Note that we as contributors do not call Chi Zhi a liar or say that his views are lies. Recall that the standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not truth but verifiability. We can easily verify the existence of an article like Teller's (in my contrived example) and her condemnation of the Chi Zhi lie. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

His opposition to the theory of evolution

I don't see how this edit "restores NPOV". There is an entire section on Wells' opposition to evolution.

Also, I quoted Wells accurately:

• "Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?"

He really said this, so why delete it? It is in fact the central claim of both his books. Surely you aren't censoring it on the grounds that his statement "advances a point of view"?

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [3]

Please consider undoing that revert. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Best not to have a quote in the lede. I only say this on style grounds. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is well covered in the remainder of the paragraph, and information citing only a primary source isn't "well-referenced". . dave souza, talk 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "primary source" thing. We're talking about an author whose views are of such importance that there are numerous websites devoted to critiquing them. Wouldn't it be germane to the article to specify more precisely just what those views are? And the reasons he provides for holding them?

Regarding evolution, Wells makes the assertion that "many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts". This assertion seems to provide the heartbeat that pumps the blood of both his books (I of E, 2002; Idiot's Guide, 2006). We ought to quote him.

Then, for balance, we can quote an opponent or two. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Wells on this point would be accepting "an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" (per WP:UNDUE). The only way to present it in a NPOV manner would be to offer with it a reasonable representation of the scientific community's opinion of his lack of honesty and accuracy on this point, and that in fact it is Wells that is doing the misrepresenting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That sounds about right: Wells is accusing the scientific community of making "misrepresentations of the facts". NCSE's rejoinder is:

• Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresentations of the facts."

So we can be neutral and say that each side calls the other a liar - or we can take sides and say that NCSE (representing the scientific community) is right, and only Wells is a liar. I prefer the former, but I'll settle for the latter. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I'll settle for careful adherence to policies, as Hrafn has pointed out. Do I recall restrictions being placed on your tendentious arguments over intelligent design? . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing mutually agreeable changes to the current article, or are you accusing me of making "tendentious arguments"? If it's the latter, please tell me what point (you think) I am arguing in favor of. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Background section

I have primarysources tagged this section, as it relies solely on Wells' writings, the UC & DI. Where it is only being used to narrate the factual skeleton of Wells' background, or how the UC (or DI) view Wells, it's not too bad (though third party sources are always preferable). I am less comfortable with including his claims about National Council of Churches of Christ criticisms, without either (i) these claims being published in the mainstream media (ii) third party commentary to give these claims context, or (iii) NCCC's own view on the situation (or at least some indication that they've even noticed Wells) -- otherwise this sentence appears questionable under both WP:UNDUE & WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of third party references to add ballast -- one to Numbers' The Creationists, the other to Cashill's Hoodwinked which Numbers cites (very obvious pro-Wells bias, but contains considerable biographical detail). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The section is much better now. Another thing that might be done is to merge that section with the next one, "Opposition to evolution", since they overlap quite a bit in terms of time. Redddogg (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the thematic separation is worth keeping. The Background section provides a brief chronological overview that would get lost in the 'Opposition to evolution' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Occupation: Author and theologian? He does not have a degree in theology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.4.94 (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

His first PhD is in Religious Studies, he has taught at his Church's seminary & is listed by them as an expert on that Church's views on marriage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he gets paid to be a theologian. You could put "educator" there, or even "advocate." Steve Dufour (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupations

"Author"

• apparently non-controversial

"Theologian"

• Masters in Religious Education; PhD in religious studies
• wrote extensively on Unification theology
• taught at the Unification Theological Seminary
• on the Board of Trustees of the Unification Theological Seminary
• "resign[ed] in 1997 to return to teaching" (at UTS?)
• has written on the subject of marriage within the Unification Church & and has been called a "Unification Church marriage expert" by church sources
• defended Unification Church theology against what he said were unfair criticisms made in 1977
• director of the International Religious Foundation, a Unification Church affiliated organization which sponsors interdenominational conferences

"Advocate"

• ...of what, and being paid for it how?

"Activist"

• ...of what, and being paid for it how?

Neither of the latter two terms are meaningful "occupations" lacking (i) an articulation of what Wells is advocating/an activist for & (ii) indication that they are some form of paid employment. Given that he is a fellow of the DI, and has written books on the topic, an argument could be made that he is an "[Intelligent design/anti-evolution] [activist/advocate]"

I would therefore suggest "author, theologian and anti-evolution activist" as his listed occupationHrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is noted as a theologian. I do agree that the information on his work with the Unification Church should be included in the article since that is an important part of his life. I am in complete agreement with "anti-evolution advocate" etc. I thought that was what the Discovery Institute was paying him to do. Borock (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I never got the impression that he worked for the DI full time. His UC-related activities appear to be at least as substantive as his anti-evo. They appear to be mostly theological (particularly if you consider that marriage/family is a central theological issue with the UC -- I can't see how they'd let anybody other than a respected theologian be a "Unification Church marriage expert"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wells is not known even within the Unification Church as a theologian. His writings on marriage and family are about marriage and family, not about their theological underpinnings (except an occasional mention in passing, something that might be expected of any traditional Christian author). I would be surprised to hear that Wells received any funding whatsoever from the Unification Church since the late 80s when he broke with church leadership to go off on his own to earn a PhD in biology from Berkeley. -Exucmember (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aids denialism

I edited the section on aids denialism in order to more closely match the sources. On this subject, the law article just criticizes Wells for signing the petition. The Vancouver Sun opinion article just says, "So it should come as no surprise that some leading lights of anti-evolution Intelligent Design theory, including ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." Neither says anything about Wells making any "claims", so I think that it is inaccurate to say that Wells was being criticized for his claims. Someone reverted my edits with a cryptic comment. Roger (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia adopting the polemic of Wells's more virulent critics ("denialism") rather than that of his less virulent critics ("reappraisal")? I see that a reference which used only the word "reappraisal", which discussed the issue in some detail, has been removed, whereas a reference using both words has been retained, as has a reference using derogatory language and mentioning "denialist" only in passing. "Reappraisal" is also the actual word used in the 1991 petition which he signed, which is Wells's only connection to the issue at all. -Exucmember (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect because "reappraisal", lacking a legitimate basis (new evidence, etc) for 'reappraising' the original view, amounts to denialism. WP:SPADE would appear to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying reappraisal lacks a legitimate basis in your opinion (and apparently in the opinion only of Wells's more virulent critics). The petition claimed that "Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis". If this statement were true, a trained scientist's thinking that a reappraisal might be in order of the existing evidence (all of which was fairly new in 1991), would not be unreasonable. Do you have a reference which successfully proves Wells knew the statement was not true? -Exucmember (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not 'my opinion', it is the scientific consensus, and has been since before 1992. 'AIDS reappraisal' redirects to AIDS denialism, so it would appear that the latter term is a legitimate (rather than "virulent") description of the position. Neither Wells nor this petition is a RS on the scientific status of 'AIDS reappraisal denialism'. I am sure that that article will provide a wealth of references on the lack of scientific credibility of 'AIDS reappraisal denialism'. However, I see little point in bringing up the matter here. If you think that the proper label is 'AIDS reappraisal', then take up the issue on Talk:AIDS denialism, and get it changed. Until then, WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions would appear to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we have had this discussion over at Talk:AIDS denialism a number of times. The consensus always has been that the independent sources tend to describe the movement as denialism, and proponents and sympathizers as reappraisal. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Wells done anything else in the cause of AIDS denialism besides signing this one petition?Steve Dufour (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

LinkinPark's ELs

These ELs fail WP:ELNO:

• #1 "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" -- in fact neither of them provide much information on Wells.
• #2 "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" -- the Weekly Wedge Update link gives the inaccurate impression that Wells performed extremely well in the debate & that his performance means "it is nearly inevitable that 'teach the controversy' will become public policy" -- which is WP:Complete bollocks.
• #13 "only indirectly related to the article's subject" -- the Dawkins link only mentions Wells in passing in a long entry on another topic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Former member?

I reverted this edit as unsourced. Anyone know anything about this? Has the left the Unificationist church? Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a Unification Church member. If Wells has left the church I will hear about it. I'll post the info here if I hear anything. Of course it can't be mentioned in the article unless some "reliable source" reports it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I was hoping you might see this note. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got word that he remains active in the church. He will be speaking to our local congregation in a couple of weeks. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to AIDS denialism

Wells did not become publicly known until 2002 when Icons of Evolution was published. He signed the AIDS petition in 1991. I don't think that is related to his notability or is an important event in his life. Borock (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a couple of secondary sources commented on it probably makes it notable. I sign lots of petitions and I wouldn't consider that an important fact about me, but if someone made that an issue in a reliable publication it could be mentioned in my biography (if I had one.) Wolfview (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source?

A lot of the article is drawn from primary sources, both by Wells himself and by people arguing with him. Is there one secondary source that gives some in depth information on him? Wolfview (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:GNG an article needs to have secondary sources. I don't see how this one can remain without them.Wolfview (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The article survived your AfD on this point. I think that was fair. I do wonder why no newspaper or magazine has bothered to interview him and do a story about him. He is the kind of person that would usually get attention from the media. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cashill(2005)"

Does anybody know/remember what work this 'short reference' refers to? If it was ever given in the article, it appears to have been lost. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed?

I think we all know Wells has never been published in peer-reviewed journals because he is an advocate of ID. And ID is against Darwinism, which we all know to be completely inerrant because Darwin was completely inerrant. So why have the editors let these (obviously false) links into Wells' WP page? Have the thought police lost ground here at WP? If so, when can we return to silencing critics of Darwin (may his name be praised)?68.102.229.231 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Projection, no specifics, no response required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Scientist"?

No, Wells has never worked as a scientist. The article states that "he worked at a position he described as '"a post-doctoral research biologist at Berkeley, writing articles critical of Darwinism.'" I have seen this described elsewhere as a paper-appointment obtained for him by Phillip E. Johnson, and certainly simply "writing articles critical of Darwinism" is not working as a scientist! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

At least we can say he is not notable as a scientist. And his work as a scientist does not seem to be mentioned in the article. I will remove the item.Wolfview (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is author of Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000). He is co-author with William Dembski of The Design of Life (FTE, 2008) and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006). His latest book, The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery Institute Press, 2011), dismantles a new favorite Darwinian icon by showing that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions." Portillo (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The source for this WP:Complete bollocks isn't commonly called 'The Dishonesty Institute' for nothing, and is a grossly unreliable source. CV-inflation is a venerable institution in creationist circles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just hope you dont think he is not a scientist because he believes in intelligent design, because there are many well credentialed scientists that believe in design. Portillo (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

What part of "Wells has never worked as a scientist" did you fail to comprehend? Oh and you miswrote your statement: "there are many well a few, generally mis-credentialed scientists that believe in design". Fixed it for you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess its better to believe than we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. Portillo (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your guess is completely off-topic, science doesn't involve belief. . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also highly inaccurate unless you define, a priori, "not God"="nothing". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a quote from atheist Quentin Smith. Portillo (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jonathan Wells (advocate)"?

This seems a not-particularly-helpful disambiguation, as he is principally known for his anti-evolution writings for/involvement in the intelligent design movement, not for general advocacy. (If a shortening from Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) was needed, then I would suggest Jonathan Wells (intelligent design).) An example in WP:QUALIFIER would appear to support this: Eddy Merckx (billiards player), not I would note Eddy Merckx (player). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that would imply he was an authority on Intelligent Design. He's claim to fame is not that he knows a lot about ID - let alone that he developed the idea - but that he wants to use ID as a weapon. His aim IIRC is to crush the evolution-atheism dyad, i.e., to undermine the support that "unguided evolution" gives to the thinking man who wants to be an atheist.

Moving the article would obscure his aim and mislead readers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "advocate" is ambiguous, here it is the equivalent of a barrister. Jonathan Wells (intelligent design proponent) would work better, a shorter version would be Jonathan Wells (ID proponent). . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)