Jump to content

Talk:Larry Caldwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quality Science Education for All is Larry Caldwell

[edit]

I think it´s very contradictory "Quality Science Education" and Creationism. As if those people were really interested in science...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.65.4 (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Science Education for All is Larry Caldwell, just as Creation Science Evangelism is Kent Hovind; would this article then not be better at Larry Caldwell? — Dunc|☺ 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does QSEA still exist?

[edit]

QSEA's website appears to have been 'domain parked' and it doesn't show up on the IRS's list of charities. Can anybody confirm if it still exists? For that matter, do we actually have a WP:RS that it was ever a formal IRS-sanctioned non-profit? HrafnTalkStalk 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panda's thumb/Sandefur

[edit]

I'm willing to believe that Sandefur is reliable, but I can't find any evidence of it - what are his qualifications? PZ Myers's blog is, to my mind, OK being as he's a bio professor. But I can't find any sense of who Sandefur is, which has me very hesitant about his reliability. Similarly, though TPT looks good, it's still, as far as I can tell, a self-published blog. So it doesn't really add reputability either. I'm sorry to be hard-nosed about this, but sourcing is a huge issue for BLPs, and on the face of it, this source doesn't look like it meets our policy. Can someone explain how it does? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the article, Sandefur is a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation (and lead attorney of its Economic Liberty Project[1]). He is also contributing editor of Liberty magazine.[2] He is the author of Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st-century America. This would make him a more authoritative source on legal matters than Myers. Last I heard, PT was accepted as a RS, but cannot point to a specific thread confirming a consensus on this. HrafnTalkStalk 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an ID/Creationism article

[edit]

Look, I agree wholeheartedly with you that intelligent design is a crock and has no place in any respectable presentation of science. No problem there. But this is an article on Larry Caldwell, not on intelligent design, and it shouldn't be turned into a forum for that debate. I'm perfectly happy to see criticism of Caldwell incorporated. But the Kitzmiller v. Dover case didn't even involve Caldwell, and shouldn't be brought in here any more than creationism should be mentioned in any article that makes a statement about evolution. Let's stay focused on the topic of the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teach the Controversy & Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎

[edit]

It should be pointed out that Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎ essentially killed off Teach the Controversy as a viable strategy -- no State Board of Education thereafter (even those who had previously been friendly to the idea) was willing to risk the "Dover trap" by attempting it. Thus if a single word description for TtC is required then it should probably be 'discredited' not 'controversial'. Otherwise the description with which Judge Jones discredited it should stand (as a notable, attributed, and thus WP:NPOV description of it). HrafnTalkStalk 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to say discredited, just because I'm not certain that the a judicial ruling is an appropriate level of credence here - especially since Kitzmiller v. Dover wasn't primarily about TtC - the attack on TtC is an off-handed statement in the ruling. But I am sympathetic to the claim that "controversial" really doesn't capture the near-unanimous disregard for it among scientists and mainstream scholars of education and pedagogy.
More broadly, though, I'm skeptical of the degree to to which this is an issue for this article. This article isn't about TtC, and I'm not sure the degree to which criticism of or explanation of TtC belongs here or is necessary here. Kitzmiller is certainly a notable view on the subject, but on the other hand, the Discovery Institute is a notable view on the subject of evolution, and (mercifully) we don't give them so much as a line in Neanderthal. Which is to say, I'm not sure that mention of TtC is sufficient to justify opening the door to criticism of TtC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue for this article because Caldwell's opinion that TtC covers evolution ""objectively, not dogmatically" has been inserted into the article. The article must therefore give WP:DUE weight to the majority opinion of the scientific and legal communities of TtC (that it is in no way objective and is based upon dogmatic adherence to sectarian views on Creation). Some indication needs to be given that this strategy that Caldwell is/has been pushing is no longer viewed as viable (and has more or less been dropped even by its promoters in favour of first Critical Analysis of Evolution and then Academic Freedom bills). TtC's last 'day in the sun' was in the Kansas evolution hearings in early 2005. HrafnTalkStalk 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except the relevance of Caldwell's opinion is that this is the article on Caldwell. So the statement isn't really a statement most primarily about TtC, but about Caldwell. So I'm hesitant to introduce a criticism of it that is neither explicitly about TtC (the opinion cited refers to a view that seems clearly in line with TtC, but it does not refer to the Discovery Institute's specific program) nor at all about Caldwell. What about dropping "controversial" before "Teach the Controversy" and adding, after the Caldwell quote, that Caldwell's view is not widely shared by mainstream scientists and educators? I'm sure we can find someone like Myers or Sandefur who has a juicy quote about the radicalness of Caldwell's views that could be put to good use here while retaining focus on Caldwell specifically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unident>It is explicitly about TtC:

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have

now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous,

and at worst a canard.

(My emphasis) How is "advocating that the controversy ... should be taught in science class" not "Teach the Controversy"? And "ID’s backers" is clearly the DI. Why should we include an unattributed weasel-worded view that is vaguely about "Caldwell's views" when we have a notable, authoritative and attributable view on Caldwell's specific claim? HrafnTalkStalk 19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that view is not on *Caldwell's* specific claim. I agree - the similarities are obvious. There may even be no substantive difference between Caldwell's claim and the claims Jones had in mind writing that view. But this is an article on Caldwell, and views that do not explicitly address Caldwell himself have no place in the article. Otherwise we open a maddening floodgate that decimates NPOV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"scientific weaknesses of evolution" & Teach the Controversy

[edit]

I have seen the phrase "scientific weaknesses of evolution" frequently used in connection with the Academic Freedom bills (e.g. by the DI here). Additionally, its concept fits well with Critical Analysis of Evolution. The earliest mention I can find of it is here in 1988, while the IDM was still coalescing, long before they came up with Teach the Controversy. I therefore would disagree with linking Caldwell's use of the idea to TtC specifically, without a RS making the connection. Linking the phrase to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎ generally would however be legitimate. HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Almost two months have passed since the last comment on this proposal. We currently have two opinions supporting it here, plus a third opinion supporting it at the RfC on Talk:Quality Science Education for All. We have one single editor opposing it on both pages. Therefore, the result was to merge here. (If anybody want to contest this, we can always have an AfD on Quality Science Education for All) -- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MERGE#Merging, Quality Science Education for All is a "duplicate"/WP:CFORK of this page in that (as Duncharris stated in #Quality Science Education for All is Larry Caldwell above) "Quality Science Education for All is Larry Caldwell, just as Creation Science Evangelism is Kent Hovind". Further, there is no RS information that QSEA ever had a formal existence as the "non-profit creationist foundation" that its article claims it to be, and the three lawsuits discussed in that article were all in the names of the Caldwells as individuals. There would therefore seem to be no reason to have separate articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the proposal. The topics are significant enough to warrant their own articles. Odd nature (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ON: please provide factual substantiation that (i) QSEA even exists in any formal sense & (ii) that it has received any non trivial coverage (let alone coverage that distinguishes QSEA from Caldwell in any way). Your unsubstantiated claim that "the topics are significant enough to warrant their own articles" has no weight whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State of California Corporation Listing for QSEA I think you owe us an apology for your difficult tone and rudeness at the other article, frankly. Odd nature (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One year after I originally asked the question, "suspended" status & no indication that it was a "non-profit" as claimed. No, I don't think I will apologise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that you have failed to even attempt to address my second point: "(ii) that it has received any non trivial coverage (let alone coverage that distinguishes QSEA from Caldwell in any way)." (see also Talk:Quality Science Education for All#What the cited sources say about QSEA) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the three lawsuits that constitute the bulk of Quality Science Education for All are explicitly listed as being brought by Caldwell as an individual, of the 10 sources, half don't mention Quality Science Education for All/QSEA at all (just Caldwell), and the other half give it only a mere mention in discussing Caldwell. This clearly indicates (i) that that article meets WP:MERGE#Merging 'Duplicate' & 'Overlap' wrt this article and (ii) that it fails to meet WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Caldwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Caldwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Caldwell&oldid=1206510962"