Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

GENERAL COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

This article is one of several all featuring ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a handful of polemical writers who insist that only their view remains. One problem is that this same original research has been intentionally spread over a number of other articles under other names, but all dealing with the same subject matter. Below this notice is a partial list of similar articles, because it is not known precisely how many of these articles have been created. However, by observing the current article it will be discovered that it is overlengh and that its many references and links belong to other related articles on Wikipedia. Heavy editing according to Wikipedia style; conformity to a proper use of the English language and prevention of religious POV is immediately required and requested. MPLX/MH 19:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original discussion had exceeded the normal length of pages. Please find the entire prior discussion here:

ARCHIVES

• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive1
• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive2
• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive3
• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive4
• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive5
• Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive6

STRAW POLLS AND CONTINUING TALK:

• Merge and Delete staw polls with continuing commentary:

MERGE

Strawpoll: Should we merge this article into the Discovery Institute article? (6/5/0). This is a non-binding straw poll, to discover if consensus has been found. Please leave your opinion below. It is considered polite to give a reason for your opinion, to facilitate discussion.

Yes, we should merge

1. Merge MPLX/MH 04:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Amended due to the change of status of the poll): This article is badly written because it is a vanity article pushing a book written by a person without the qualifications to write it; it is also a duplicate of a book article, a author article and an organization article (and there may be more!) - all on Wikipedia. The article is badly written, unencyclopedic and a fraud that begins by claiming that a controversy exists over Darwinism being taught in US public schools when Darwinism has been replaced by current scientific enquiry. This article could be merged into the book article, the Johnson article or the Discovery article (and there could be and probably are more of them.)
2. Merge. The apparent impossibility of agreement on the content of the article is, I think, at least in part the result of its subject being a single political project of the Discovery Institute rather than a topic in its own right. There is, as MPLX/MH says, nothing here that isn't already, or that could easily be, covered by other existing articles. Thus this article serves merely to spread a topic dear to the hearts of its supporters over as much of Wikipedia as possible. If either the Discovery Institute or Phillip Johnson articles were long and rich, then there'd be a point in separating this out — but they're not, so there isn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Merge. Having spent the last 2 1/2 hours reading the discussions, different versions of this article and the Discovery Institute article, I feel that the best NPOV analysis of "Teach the Controversy" is within the Discovery Institute article and that despite valiant efforts on the part of several editors (both pro and con) expansion of this subject is well-nigh impossible without degenerating into POV from either one side or the other. Furthermore, I have not seen any convincing evidence that the "Teach the Controversy" movement exists in any significant way separate from the Discovery Institute. Soundguy99 18:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Merge. Note to those protesting that the articles aren't duplicates—yes, that's true. Merging is also used when one article fits well within the context of another. Since Teach the Controversy seems to be almost entirely a project of the Discovery Institute, then it seems to fit quite comfortably within that article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Merge. This whole thing makes no sense outside of the Discovery Institute's agenda. It isn't a separate movement. Ian Pitchford 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Merge. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Creation and evolution in public education is worthy of its own article, but a specific slogan used by a single group in that controversy is not. RadicalSubversiv E 21:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Merge. (with redirect). We can include the information on the DI page and if it gets too unweildy restart this page. Joshuaschroeder 22:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Concur with the above. Radiant_* 10:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
10. Strong Merge, weak no redirect. Slogans do not require articles; they describe things that do. No redirect because slogans are not exclusive to a group. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No, we should not merge

1. Do not merge. Ungtss 11:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Do not merge. Merging would be a violation of Wiki policy, because these are not duplicate articles and the topic stands on its own. Teach the Controversy policy is supported by numerous other organizations (see cites above); has been approved by Congress; adopted by Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico (see article). Those who want to merge want to bury this article in another article because they don't like the concept. They want it to appear that it is only about the Discovery Institute and deny the broader support and implementation by Ohio. This is pure POV and has no place on Wiki. --VorpalBlade 14:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Do not merge. Topic has been debated by school boards, and plenty of organisations outside Discovery institute. This would be like merging Theory of Relativity with Albert Einstein. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Do not merge. Topic has been discussed in multiple areas. I have actually heard very few debates on Teach The Controversy where the Discovery Institue has been mentioned. It is now easy to find critiques of evolution outisde of the Discovery Institute. User: Mred64 17;06, 21 Apr, 2005 (EST)

My vote should probably be in the Newbie vote section, but I don't want to mess with the poll and accidentally change something. I didn't see a "Newbie vote" section when I originally posted my vote. Mred64 22:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After reading wedge strategy, I do think that that articel should be moved into the Discovery institute one, or (less preferably) this article. The wedge strategy is pretty well described in the Discovery Institue article, and it could probaly only be made better by elaborating on it like the wedge strategy article itself. My vote still stands that this article should be separate. This article talks more about "teach the controversy" and its views (for better or for worse, wrong or right)than the Discovery Institute article. Perhaps if more research was done from sources outside those mentioned in the Discovery Institute article, then a more legitmate arguement claiming exclusivity between the articles could be made. Unfortuantely, a lot of, shall i say, "in between" evidence seems to strengthen each side's arguemnt. Science goes "Cool! Look at how powerful evolution is to be able to do (X)" Those against evolution tend to go "Ha! The arguement of evolution is weakened because of (X)" Basically, most evidence can be used by either side. However, this would be good because creationists would get more evidence to keep this article separate while evolutionists get to look at and post other interpretations of the evidence, perhaps keeping the article more NPOV. Granted, this is a lot of work, so many would have to eb vigilant to make sure the article doesn't lean too strong to either side while it is being edited. Mred64 02:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newbie vote

• Do not merge. Topic has enough information behind it to warrant a seperate page from the DI, and has been picked up by other organizations outside of the DI. This article can warrant as a timeline of the movement's life, outside of the DI's birthing. Whether or not the entire article deserves heavy rewriting is aside from the matter at hand. I'm still laughing over the 'eating babies' comment. TheRayven 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)
  • User has only five edits.

Alleged vote

• Grace Note is apparently voting no, but placed her comments below. She says in part, "First of all, I don't think this is a particularly significant "movement" but I'm a proponent of broad coverage for Wikipedia, so I support a separate article. I think we ought not to use our POVs to determine what there should or shouldn't be articles on, only criteria such as "Is there actually a movement?", "Does it have a platform that can be discussed and criticised?", "Does it have a membership?" and so on." --VorpalBlade 10:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find anything signed 'Grace Note' below, or in the history log, so I fail to see how that can be construed as a vote. Radiant_* 10:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • See about half way down Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive5. Seems like a clear preference for not merging; whether it should be counted as a vote is a question of wikiquette that I'm not qualified to answer. Gareth McCaughan 14:16, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Comments

• Voting Strict majority voting is not normally permitted on wikipedia ( Wikipedia is not a democracy) , changed to strawpoll format, but note that even strawpolls are really discouraged. Try for consensus :-) Kim Bruning 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (and Fixed: Kim Bruning 20:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) see also Wikipedia:Survey guidelines and below for details)
  • Yes, polls are evil ;) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't vote on everything, and Voting Is Evil as well :) Sam Spade 15:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The briefest read-through of Wikipedia is not a democracy tells you that the claim "Voting is not permitted on wikipedia " is false. Voting is of course permitted: "Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision." Also, the advice to try for consensus would appear to ignore the history of this page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's odd! Try reading all the way back to wardwiki? Kim Bruning 20:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, your selective quotation is misleading. The main principle that Kim puts forth is supported by the full discussion.

Also, why the cynicism about consensus on this page? We worked out an acceptable intro by consensus. If we had all sought consensus before making massive POV changes, there would have been no need to lock it. Seems like a good Wiki citizen and a good Admin should not ignore the successes of consensus seeking and should not discourage others in that regard.

Why don't we work together to improve the article, instead of bickering about merging? --VorpalBlade 13:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the claim that voting is not permited on Wikipdia is simply false; indeed, it's absurd. There is no such stricture in Wikipedia policy, or even in guidelines. Pure 'yes–no' voting is certainly deprecated, except in certain cases, but not forbidden.

• We didn't work out an acceptable intro by consensus. As soon as it seemed that we'd done so, up popped another objection from one side or the other. The discussion was marked by inflexbility on both sides. I tried hard to be a mediator, attempting to get both sides to moderate their hard-line positions, and I had absolutely no success. The evidence is above and in the archives. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, so how about all the texts (with their sublinks) provided by Fennec, Sam , and myself? Note that while a vote is typically binding, a poll is not, and is at least tolerated, hence the conversion. Hmmm, and maybe you can reason for yourself: What would happen if we allowed encyclopedic content to be decided by vote? Reply on my user talk if you prefer. :) Kim Bruning 10:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this distinction between 'vote' and 'poll', and its attendant definitions. Is this Wikipedia usage? As for the various slogans and links — which one says that votes aren't permitted? One says: "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll" (and that applies here), and I can't see any of them stating that Wikipedia policy is not to permit voting. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, as you might have seen on many policy pages, wikipedia is run by consensus decision making. Contrast action by Vote. Note how straw polls are theoretically ok, but are considered evil, because they are easily confused with votes. Wikipedia policy is usually stated in positive terms: ie. "Page content on wikipedia is decided by consensus", as opposed to "Page content is not decided by vote". Kim Bruning 12:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. I know what voting is; I questioned your distinction between and implied definitions of 'vote' and 'poll'. The articles to which you link have nothing to say on that.
  2. Does this mean that you accept the points I made about the earlier links, together with the quotation "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll"? And what I said about long attempts at gaining consensus and at mediation? This discussion is proceeding in a horribly familiar way: I'm responding to what you're saying, and instead of responding to what I say, you simply pop up with new comments and claims to repeat your original point. Wikipedia:Wikiquette: "Don't ignore questions"; I think that the same can fairly be said for other points, arguments, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • • Hmm, sorry about that, in fact I think we're in violent agreement. We both seem to agree that quick votes(polls) are a good method to quickly discover peoples opinions, and that they should be avoided for final descision making where possible. Kim Bruning 14:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• That theory (not a slogan) is broadly accepted, refined and large/complex enough to require an article. Einstein originated it, but its out of his hands now. (also if ToR turned out to be a crackpot theory, it would be merged with Einstein assuming he was notable) Teach the controvery... as yet is not accepted (debating does not equal accepting); and remains firmly tied DI. Anyway, my objection comes from slogans not having articles. It's not required; furthermore people/issues don't have exclusivity to slogans. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

---

RESTORED TO VERSION BY MEL

This version was agreed to. It is still over the length. VorpalBlade decided to reinsert his own POV version which is way out of line in both content and length. The opening was agreed to as stated FACT and the rest should be brought in line. THIS ARTICLE IS ALSO A DUPLICATE OF AT LEAST TWO OTHERS ON WIKIPEDIA and zealots are trying to paste their POV everywhere and in so doing they are destroying the entire academic concept of Wikipedia as a sourse of RELIABLE knowledge. 14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

calm down, bro. This article needs to fairly describe the policy, the pros, and the cons. that doesn't rape wikipedia in any way at all. Ungtss 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version was never agreed to. It was very misleading and involved deletion of 120+ lines without explanation or discussion. --VorpalBlade 15:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

STOP MISLEADING! - The agreed version was not mine it was by Mel and it is noted below! MPLX/MH 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss STOP DELETING MY COMMENTS ON TALK! MPLX/MH 15:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MPLX If you really believe that Ungtss has been editing your comments on talk, please give the edit where this happened. I checked back on this talk page as far as 12.00 April 24th and I can't find it. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) (incidentally this comment was also erased accidentally - maybe that's what happened to yours)

How does one erase accidentally? The paragraph below was originally posted and then it disappeared under his editing, unless you are he and that is the reason for your concern in something that he did? Sockpuppets and vandals have recently appeared on this page. Check the history. MPLX/MH 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accidental erasures can occur when there is an edit conflict, and an editor incorrectly copies their additions into the top box. It can also occur when you revert a change, and fail to notice that there was more than just the change you wish to revert. Another way is when you are removing duplicate sections and when someone modifies one section between you reading the sections and pressing edit. That is what I believe happened when my original posting of the above question was erased.

As I said, I did check the history and failed to find any case where Ungtss deleted any comments of yours, or any other comments, from this talk page. Now I may have been mistaken, which is why I asked you where this erasure had taken place. Then maybe we can do something about it. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I finally found where your entry was erased, and it was done by VorpalBlade, not Ungtss. Wild accusations don't help things here.

VorpalBlade, please don't do that again. It's very bad etiquette. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOW REVERTED BY Ungtss

The 2 MAJOR reversions that have now taken place to destroy the agreed opening text by Mel and partial layout of classification show that this is a hopeless editing undertaking. THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE LOCKED BY ADMINS AT THE AGREED VERSION BY MEL. Then several related and duplicated POV articles should also be examined by Admins because they carry the SAME religious message by the SAME editors under different names. Clearly a handful of people have decided to use Wikipedia as their own personal means of religious propaganda. Editing is now a hopeless and lost cause on this topic which covers so many other articles under different names on Wikipedia. The bad faith is shown by destroying the agreed opening version by Mel which stated facts and which has been reverted to poorly written nonsense. MPLX/MH 15:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DATE OF AGREED VERSION BY MEL

To find the date of the agreed version by Mel please see the history of the article and look for this date and these comments by Mel:

• 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis (manually rerting (admin rollback seems to be up the spout), and correcting merge (Text follows):

Teach the Controversy is an idea proposed by author Phillip E. Johnson and promoted by the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, of which he is a member, to encourage public schools students in the United States to both debate and critically evaluate all current scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution.

Members of the the Discovery Institute who support the proposal include Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and Jonathan Wells. Substantial financial support for the proposal is provided by Howard Ahmanson, Jr and The Maclellan Foundation [2].

Controversy

Opponents, including most mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach.

---

Can I point out that the first person to edit this 'agreed' version is the same MPLX who is now complaining that an admin should lock the article at that version. In these two edits MPLX cuts out an enormous amount of the article. That doesn't sound much like it was an agreed version. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT disagree with the text reproduced above which is the only part that was agreed to because it is a statement of FACT. This is is not a movement, it has no officers, no organization, no address other than the idea by Phillip E. Johnson, promotion by the Discovery Institute and funding by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. But because it is a duplicate of other articles under other names about the same subject it should be merged. I removed the OBVIOUS duplications of links and texts that had nothing to do with a proposed idea called Teach the Controversy. MPLX/MH 16:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what you think about the movement. However you should not call for an admin lock if the only part of the article that has been agreed on is the introduction. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on some facts. I read in the current version of the introduction "has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other creationist organizations, including Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Leadership University [1] (http://www.leaderu.com/focus/teachcontroversy.html), Renew America [2] (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004) and BreakPoint [3] (http://www.pfm.org). ". Is this factually true? We should be able to find out by following the links. If it is true, then the statement should stay. Isn't that the logical thing to do? DJ Clayworth 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No its not. First of all this Talk page has duplicated sections in it and I am trying to straighten this mess out. Second it is obvious that you just want to continue with obfuscation. The article is on Wikipedia - NOT in ORIGINAL RESEARCH! MPLX/MH 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you meant that "no the statement is not true" or "no it's not the logical thing to do"? DJ Clayworth 17:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COMPLAINT ABOUT ORIGINAL RESEARCH

This article contains a novelty of interpretation forming original research concerning a idea being translated into a movement. The title of the article is "Teach the Controversy" - it is a proposal of future action - not an ongoing activity. The controversy would occur (future) if the idea was put into practice. However, the word idea has been changed to movement, yet there is no movement having a policy, officers and address. The idea was proposed by Johnson and taken up by the Discovery Institute as a part of their agenda. Both receive financing from the same source. Another word for this same idea is wedge as in wedge strategy, and there are several articles on Wikipedia which all need to be examined since they are all primarily the work of the same editors who are driving the polemical and original research interpretation of this article. MPLX/MH 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is original research. If you are right, then it's been mislabelled as a movement when it should be an idea. That can be fixed with a single edit. The ban on original research is to stop Wikipedia authors using Wikipedia to promote theories that they have come up with. For other theories the criterion is simply whether or not the movement/idea is notable. That doesn't mean lots of people support it, it means that lots of people have heard of it.

There is also no reason to remove this article, or merge it, just because the article is about a call for future action instead of action that is going on now. We have an article about Nuclear disarmament, which is a proposal for future action (it even says that right in the introduction). I don't think a movement (or an idea) needs an address before we can talk about it. We have plenty of articles that don't. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is an attempt to define a situation that doesn't exist in order to promote a propaganda campaign. Clearly, it's not suitable material for Wikipedia. Ian Pitchford 20:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that nobody is talking about "Teach the Controversy", because that doesn't seem to be the case. As I'm sure you're aware, the threshold for notability is pretty low on Wikipedia. You will find, for example, that there is an article talking about the theory that Reptilian humanoids have invaded the earth, and Modern geocentrism. Teach the Controversy is much better know, and probably more agreed with, than those. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the article refers to a state of affairs that doesn't exist, i.e. controversy in scientific circles over the status of evolutionary theory, in order to advocate a "remedy" that is, in fact, a vehicle for promotion of the group's political and religious agenda. It's all very straightforward. Ian Pitchford 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are two states of affairs in discussion here. first is the state of affairs that you're concerned with: the presence of a controversy. the second is the existence of people calling for a "Teach the Controversy" policy. Even conceding for the sake of argument that the first state of affairs does not exist, the second one does. This article should concern itself with the second state of affairs, which is factual, and note as related to that fact that the scientific community tells us over and over like a mantra that there is no controversy to teach. it's all very easy, gentlemen. there's a very easy way for you to vanquish your foe in this case. simply put your energy into a kick-ass criticism section. Ungtss 21:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like an mantra? Is that surprising when you are faced with people who refuse to be swayed by facts, who fixate on little bits taken out of context? It's a article about a fake movement pushing a fake controversy - forget about DI - we should just redirect to The Daily Show? Guettarda 22:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with you. your comments are irrelevent to the content of the article. put all your hatred of us stupid, ignorant creationists in a kickass criticism section. don't waste your time on me. i'm a lost cause. too ignorant and bigoted. no hope for me. but maybe you can help the reader by allowing TTC to make all its best arguments, and then obliterating them. Ungtss 22:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hate? Not really. Not the people who actually believe it. The cynics who twist reality for their own ends, who knowingly publish books based on falsehoods - I'd say I'm pretty upset with them. The followers - I'm saddened, nothing more. It's ridiculous to copy the same thing into a half dozen articles and then have to edit-war to even get something halfway NPOV. I came here with an open mind as to whether "Teach the Controversy" was something real enough for an article. I didn't vote in the straw poll, I spent a few days looking around and trying to figure out what the correct thing to do with the article was. Sure, I came here well enough aware that this was just another one of Johnson's fantasies. But that has little to do with whether there was enough distinct information here to warrant a distinct article. And my conclusion was "no". More to the point though, this dispute was not about whether this movement was a big enough deal to have an article - what it amounts to is an attempt to push POV. So while I voted "merge", based on the antics here (and I'm not just talking about one side) I should have voted "delete". [And yes, I did fix the VfD notice, but that was after it was already up]. And if you consider yourself "ignorant and bigoted" (not my words, not my choice of words) then you should really think twice about whether you should be editting this article at all. Guettarda 22:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you couldn't identify my sarcasm in calling myself bigoted, can't recognize that the duplication been a result of evolutionists copying this material elsewhere in an effort to demonstrate redundancy in the name of a bizarre conspiracy theory, and are still trying to bait me into an irrelevent debate. i want this article to consolidate all the information on this policy. It is your homies who are copying this stuff everywhere they can think of. Ungtss 22:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recognised sarcasm. My reply wasn't really fair, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally either. But I was out of line, and I apologise. Guettarda 13:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss this is for you: You have a bee in your bonnet that everyone who is opposed to this article is opposed to the idea of God. That is false. I am in total agreement with the opening words of the US Declaration that attributes everything to "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature", but like Tom Paine who helped to inspire all of that, I am one of those who read his book the Age of Reason and found myself nodding in approval. I dislike all man-made religion, but it does not mean that I do not believe in "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature", because I do. I am against the hypocrisy of man-made religion - its lies and its distortions and its wars of hate ... all of which are showing up here with the flag wavers. The FACT of the matter is that this was Johnson's IDEA adopted by the Discovery Institute and made a part of their agenda - their movement. It has NOT been adopted and therefore it is (as the title implies) a proposal to teach ... not teaching ... but future: to teach the idea which will then create controversy. You lot want to brand everyone who disagrees with poor English, a misstatement of the obvious facts and a long and rambling duplicated bit of polemical nonsense, as atheists who hate God. That is the problem. In your view this is a religious dogma that you either accept or reject - in your terminology it is either "them" or "us". You seem to forget that we are all co-equal editors here on a encyclopedia. We are not in church and we are not going to get excommunicated if we stand up and say that this is a load of old cobblers ... because "Nature's God" and the "Laws of Nature" have made us all equal in death. So back off and remember where you are. This is not a church (thank God for that!), this is a encyclopedia and we are all editors looking for just the facts. MPLX/MH 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<You have a bee in your bonnet that everyone who is opposed to this article is opposed to the idea of God. That is false.>>

You're damn right it's false. i said nothing of the sort. I could care less what you think about god and religion. i've never met you and i never will. i'm concerned with an npov article here, and you have proven yourself deadset on preventing it. ttc exists and is notable. we need an npov article describing the policy and criticism. your problem is that you think your perception of "my religion" as "man made religion full of hypocrisy" and whatnot should justifies its exclusion from wikipedia. wrongo. your religion is no better than mine, and npov allows them all to coexist in harmony, if we're all willing to play by the rules. Ungtss 23:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I can't tell when you are being sarcastic and when you are not being sarcastic because that is how I understood your comments. Stop being sarcastic and then we will all know what you mean. Now to your NPOV comment I am all for that but you see you keep renaming an IDEA as a POLICY of a MOVEMENT. There was an idea by Johnson which was accepted as the policy of the Discovery Institute. But as the name implies it is a FUTURE controversy IF the policy of the DI was ever adopted. Stick to the facts and we will get along just fine. MPLX/MH 23:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When people call themselves bigoted and a "lost cause," check twice for sarcasm. Secondly, here are the facts: "Teach the controversy, according its proponents, is a policy advocated for public schools which recommends that they teach facts but in support of and challenging evolution." Those are the facts. That's it. Conspiracy theories go home. That's what the idea/movement/whatever is. Ungtss 23:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you now want to pretend that Johnson and the DI had nothing to do with "Teach the Controversy"? That is what we are discussing, not one of the many other duplicate articles, or have you forgotten which page you are on? MPLX/MH 23:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(restoring text inadvertantly deleted by mplx. please be more cautious). Listen. i want the intro to state what the idea is, who came up with the term, and who supports it. your intro only does the second. that's ludicrous. Ungtss 23:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having two comments ongoing in two sections is confusing. See all of my further comments under your "intro" heading. MPLX/MH 23:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General note

I have twice removed massive duplicated sections of the same page due to careless editing. This clean-up takes time. Please be sure that you are not saving material twice. All previous material except for polls (and duplicated material) is now on archive 6. MPLX/MH 22:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction (first paragraph of article)

your intro, mplx, is utter nonsense. Ungtss 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now which intro is that and why is it "utter nonsense"? As usual you have made a statement which lacks meaning. MPLX/MH 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) it doesn't state what ttc is -- what the idea is. second, it ties TTC to johnson + DI when, as demonstrated on the VFD, the ideas of TTC predate johnson, and johnson only put a label on a very old idea. next, your last sentence lacks any coherent meaning whatsoever. "if the idea was ever accepted as reality?" The idea is accepted as reality -- the idea exists and is being promoted by a lot of people. secondly, there is a controversy -- the controversy is over whether or not there's a controversy to teach. Finally, "which is how the name of this idea evolved." Evolved? How did the name evolve? Johnson came up with it. That's it. The intro is sheer nonsense, bro. Ungtss 23:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact: If you want to discuss something other than "Teach the Controvery" then take it somewhere else! This idea began with Johnson in his book. It was adopted by the DI. The title of this article is a FUTURE event, it is not something that has happened in the past. If that is not what this is about then even the article has the wrong name! This is why I asked Mel to wade in with English 101 and perform a clean-up of style and words. Clearly you are not up to this task but Mel has the qualifications that you cannot dispute. (Well, I take that back because you seem to dispute even the meaning of the word "evolve"!) MPLX/MH 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact:TTC is an idea being discussed right now. It is a not a future event. It is a recommended policy. Fact: the policy of teaching pro/con on evolution is very old, and advocated by ICR long before johnson did it. Fact: the only task you've been upto is deleting arguments in favor of this idea. Ungtss 23:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you do agree that it is an idea? Second, whose policy is this? To have a policy (a policy) you have to have a organization with officers with an address. Where is this organization if it is not the DI? The title says that it is a future event that will cause a controversy. If that is not what this is about then rename the article! MPLX/MH 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me take a step back. what is this future event you're talking about? Ungtss 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heaven help us all! WHERE ARE YOU MEL?????? The title indicates a future event. If it was "Teaching the Controversy" it would be ongoing. The title as written is an instruction to do something that has not yet happened: teach. Teach what? Teach the Controversy. So there is no controversy until the teaching begins! MPLX/MH 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come back to reality. The controversy is the "pro-con" on evolution. according to proponents, the controversy already exists, it's just not being taught in schools. They're saying: "The controversy exists. Teach it." Ungtss 23:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Ungtss, at last you have identified the problems:

• This article was named Teach the Controversy about an idea proposed in a book written by Johnson.
• Johnson is a member of the DI who adopted Johnson's idea.
• The only "policy" is that of the DI because THIS article is about Johnson's idea in a book, it is NOT about a movement.
• The title is not a "come on now" issue, it was named "Teach the Controversy". I did not give this article its name. The name is future tense - not present - nor past - it is future. The controversy is also future because Johnson's idea is stated in the future tense. MPLX/MH 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're still missing it. The future tense refers to teach, not to controversy. according to creationists, the controversy already exists -- it's simply not being taught. Teach (in the future) the controversy (that already exists). Ungtss 23:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not about anything more than an idea in Johnson's book. He gave it a name and others adopted the idea. But his idea remains on this article an idea and therefore any controversy that would flow from the teaching of that idea would be as future as the teaching. You cannot have one without the other. However, since it is obvious that you are trying to make this article into something other than what it is, you want to predate the idea before Johnson ever gave it a name. But that is not what this article is all about. It is only about Johnson's idea and it is stuck in time and cannot be moved. Now the DI can move it ahead but this article is not about the DI ... or is it? You are setting your own trap! MPLX/MH 00:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First things first before we go down the next rabbit hole. do you concede that the Future tense in the title refers to Teach rather than Controversy? Ungtss 00:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. (I am taking a break for a couple of hours). My reasoning now follows:

Logic 101

• Teach is future
• Evolutionists do not think that their ideas are controversial.
• Johnson proposed a controversy in the classrooom.
• The whole concept is futuristic and the idea itself is stuck in time with Johnson. MPLX/MH 00:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there is absolutely no reason for such an absurd interpretation. johnson is involved in the existing controversy all the time. he writes books about it, and his organization is doing research on it. the controversy exists. it's just outside the classroom. johnson wants it in there. if you refuse to concede this basic point, there's no reason to go further. Ungtss 00:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As dilligently explained on the creation-evolution controversy page, the controversy is very much contrived for a lot of reasons. Joshuaschroeder 00:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a point that can be accurately and effectively articulated on this page as a critique of the proposed policy. the fact is, the controversy exists, contrived or not. surely we should teach our students how to effectively spot a contrived controvery? Ungtss 00:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the controversy doesn't exist in science. there are people out there who still think the world is flat does that mean there is a flat world controversy?

Does the controversy exist? Does this matter?

I strongly disagree with the POV expressed in the lead that the controversy does not yet exist and will not exist until the policy in question is implemented. There quite clearly is a controversy: the controversy being whether or not evolution is true. Evolutionists (and I should be frank here and freely admit that I am an evolutionist) will generally argue that there's no controversy and that evolution is obviously true because it's been proven again and again and that all the creationist theories are "unscientific". However, the creationists will argue, for their own reasons, that their theories are correct and that the evolutionists are wrong for whatever reason they argue (please, don't ask me to detail them, I don't know and it's not important right now). The point is, evolutionists and creationists disagree. There is, therefore, a controversy. End of discussion.

The lead paragraph as it stands, therefore, is pushing a pro-evolution, pro-scientist point of view and should not be allowed to stand. I understand the irony here: people opposed to "Teach the Controversy" are placed in the awkward position of validating the position they object to by the mere act of admitting that a controversy exists, which is probably why they so vehemently object to admitting the controversy. This is unfortunate for those opposed to "Teach the Controversy", as it means that their primary argument against it doesn't work and they need to come up with a new one. I sympathize with them, but lying about the true state of affairs in the world is not the appropriate way to win an argument. Nor is it the appropriate way to write an encyclopedia article.

Kelly Martin 00:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Ungtss 00:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While what you say is true (there is a controversy between evolution and creationism), as I understand it, that isn't what DI is asking to be taught. Teaching that controversy belongs in a Social Studies class. The call here is for teaching the controversy in evolution, and that controversy does not exist, at least not in the way that DI and their allies want it taught. It's a fiction based on perceived problems like Haeckel's diagrams and whether or not the appendix serves a useful purpose. These are not the things that evolutionary biology debates. These are old (and answered) questions, or they are false questions. The whole "teach the controversy" ideas is based on a false premise. (Granted, as Soiundguy99 pointed out, that is not the germane point of controversy here). Guettarda 13:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although evolution has generated a great deal of political and philosophical debate, there is little to no controversy surrounding evolution as an over-arching theory in the mainstream scientific community. It is viewed there as a valid and well-supported scientific theory. TTC proponents who claim that there is a controversy within the scientific community over evolution that needs to be taught creates a misperception about the current status of the theory within the scientific community, either intentionally or unintentionally, and in so doing, furthers a specious justification being used to weaken science curricula. FeloniousMonk 19:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is right. The members of this "movement" simply musn't be allowed to misuse Wikipedia to spread false ideas regarding the scientific status of evolution as a method of advancing their propaganda and policy aims. Ian Pitchford 19:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly Martin, and welcome to the free fire zone. Yes, the opening paragraph as it stands right now (and it could, I'm serious, change at any second) is horribly POV. However, the core debate here (and why it's on VfD) is not whether a controversy exists at all - the 5 pages of archives of this discussion attest to the fact that a controversy exists - but whether a specific plan called "Teach the Controversy" is specifically connected with the Discovery Institute and should be made a section of that article or whether it is or has grown to be a movement independent enough to warrant its own article. Some of the evolutionists appear to believe that allowing this article to exist at all is "creationist creep", and some creationists have definitely attempted to use this article in just that fashion by repeated pro-creationist POV writing. You're just seeing one swing of the pendulum. Soundguy99 01:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I am in large agreement with the comments of Kelly Martin above. My chief concern is that portraying the scientific community as being in 'absolute consensus' in denying that a controversy exists reaches beyond the cited evidence available. The cited polls (Newsweek, Robinson, Witham, PBS, etc.) question scientists on whether they accept the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation of origins, but they do not seem to specifically question the scientists on whether they believe "a controversy exists". It's a subtle, but important difference! The mere existence of debates such as those featured on this discussion page indicate that the question of whether or not a controversy exists is a controversy itself!

I would prefer to err on the side of caution, and state in the article that a 'majority', 'vast majority', or 'consensus of practising biology teachers' (citing the reference!) accept evolutionary theory and do not believe that the theory is in contention. This would be an acceptable inference from the cited references; whilst respecting the fact that a small number of ID advocates with respectable qualifications and publications (from Schroeder to Behe) believe that the theory is fatally flawed, and that further study may yet see a Kuhnian paradigm shift emerge in scientific understanding.

FYI, my personal POV is 'cheerful agnosticism'; I do not seek to push either a pro or anti-ID barrow. I'd just like to avoid the use of blanket statements that speak on behalf of 'the entire scientific community' based on the opinion poll evidence currently available. cheers, JGarth 15:30, 30 Apr 2006 (PMT)

there is no scientific controversy. the controversy is not in science but in if we should be talking about the teach the controversy controversy.

OriginalResearch

I do not believe that the {{OriginalResearch}} tag is appropriate on this article. I see no evidence of original research in this article. I would like to see a cogent argument offered why this tag should remain. Kelly Martin 01:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

There have been few if any cogent arguments made at all from the user placing that tag. i strongly support its removal. Ungtss 01:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think it should come out. --VorpalBlade 14:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good ol' Proposal 4 with some minor additions

If you look at Archives 2 and 3 above, you will see extensive discussions of the intro over a 5-6 day period, and Proposal 4 was agreed upon. This version received approval by at least four people, two from each side of the debate. Ian requested changes, and a change to the first sentence was put in. Joshua suggested an alternative, but got no support. Then all hell broke loose, and massive deletions ensued, with little constructive discussion and no consensus. The following is a (slightly) modified version of Proposal 4:

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students all the relevant scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The term was coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, but the policy has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other organizations. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference. Among the literature cited are articles from mainstream scientific journals as well as works by members of the Discovery Institute. [3]

This is far more neutral than the current version. I propose that we work from this (or from the original Proposal 4) and seek consensus for any other changes. --VorpalBlade 02:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye to your dark age

Clearly you guys are brainwashed nuts! I am left with no other conclusion. I am through with this childish nonsense. Clearly the tub-thumpers are the loudest and the shrillest, just like talk radio which is why I recently paid a membership to my local NPR station as the only refuge of the sane. Have at it guys, I am basically through with Wikipedia because you have finally convinced me that it has a built-in fatal flaw. I no longer have faith in the Wikipedia experiment. Given enough zealots and ditto-heads the jackboots will always stomp in the name of some God and censorship. Years later you lot will probably deny that you ever held such locked-in positions. May the free minds of the world survive thanks to "Nature's God". Have fun boys and girls, because this is my exit from this madhouse. Your abusive catcalls will not be noticed as I do not intend to return. The ghosts of Adolph and Joe Stalin will be proud of you and Saddam and Osama will not give up hope for their own zombie causes. Bye, bye. MPLX/MH 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Truly the voice of reason hath spoken. Ungtss 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was rather trollish. Your stock is falling. FeloniousMonk 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General Complaints

I'm with Mel on removing the {{GC}} template. Can someone (e.g. Rednblu) explain why this template belongs on this article? Kelly Martin 12:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know what Wiki policy is on this, so I may change my mind if somebody enlightens me. --VorpalBlade 13:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on Joshua's Intro "Proposal 5"

I am pasting this here from above, since there were not many comments before. Even though I prefer Proposal 4, I think Joshua's proposal is constructive and deserves a full discussion. Put your new comments under New Comments. Thanks.--VorpalBlade 13:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old Comments

As we stagnate above with the discussion on whether this article should be kept, can we come to a consensus about whether a new sentence can be written that's not as problematic? No one has made a specific criticism of my suggestion, so I suggest we work from it (since the DI's definition contains at least two problems as yet unresolved). To remind everyone, my idea was as follows:

"Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes a education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The movement is designed by its proponents to present an alternative to the paradigmatic hegemony in evolutionary biology without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy."

My claim is that the so-called "consensus" intro isn't really a good consensus because it isn't clear about what is opinion and what is fact. This opening sentence (to be followed by the sentence two and three of the opening paragraph) is very clear about what people believe what. We aren't making any claims about "scientific evidence" in the policy itself since that is definitely disputed, but at the same time we are clear that the movement leaders believe that there is scientific evidence that is ignored. I don't think it is overly unfair to anyone, but will be happy to edit according to appropriate arguments against this thought. Please comment. Joshuaschroeder 16:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think 'paradigmatic hegemony' is appropriate (though I love the phrase). How about 'alternative to evolutionary theory'? Also I think the Discovery Institute should be mentioned. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changed. Joshuaschroeder 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, I could comment more, but will not be able to do so today. My short answer is this: I think the current intro, which reflects the consensus version, plus a small change to the first sentence that Ian suggested, is pretty good. Procedurally, I think it best reflects the views of the five main participants on this page over the last few days. Since we worked pretty hard to develop consensus, I would prefer to work from that language, rather than start fresh. However, there are aspects of Joshua's intro that I like. What exactly do you think is wrong with the current intro? I think it does a pretty good job of stating what the movement is, without stating the views of the proponents or opponents as if they are "fact." --VorpalBlade 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't explicit about what the proponents believe as opposed to what is fact. This intro is. What is more, it is clear about its relationship. I am not interested in whether it was a "consensus" edit or not. The problems are too great, in my opinion, to be tractable as a simple modification. Joshuaschroeder 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for new text: Teach the Controversy is a about an imaginary controversy focused upon whether the Bible should be allowed to counterbalance the teaching of Darwinism in US Public Schools. For the sake of historical and academic accuracy it should be noted that Darwinism is only taught in US Public Schools by way of historical reference to Charles Darwin and not as a current scientific theory. MPLX/MH 21:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any substantive criticisms of the new sentence, I'm including it in the article. Thanks for all who have offered their opinion. Joshuaschroeder 16:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object. You should be interested in whether it was a consensus edit because that is Wiki policy. I objected to your proposal and asked a question. The recent focus on this page has been on the merge proposal. Let's discuss your proposal before you make a change. --VorpalBlade 17:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy/movement is not primarily about presenting arguments, but about presenting evidence. I don't like the phrase about "invoking the . . . controversy." No need for it. I actually like the "hegemony" phrase in your earlier version.

I moved the discussion here to get more comments. Maybe we will get some now. --VorpalBlade 17:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<The movement is designed by its proponents to present an alternative to evolutionary biology without specifically invoking the [[creation-evolution controversy>>

The intro is fine with me, with the exception of the last sentence. the last sentence is explicitly factually incorrect. Nowhere does TTC wish to "present an alternative to evolutionary biology." Its express agenda is to discuss evolutionary biology in more critical detail. Ungtss 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, which do you prefer between the current intro and this one? I don't think this is too bad either, but is it worth departing from the current consensus version? I agree with your comment on the last sentence. --VorpalBlade 18:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I definitely prefer yours. it is absolutely superior. unfortunately, schroeder is quite insistent when his worldview is on the line, and is unlikely to compromise any more than absolutely necessary, so i was attempting to pick our battles by letting him have a little room to push his pov. Ungtss 23:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I submit it is worth departing since the consensus intro contains positions that are related in the intro as facts as opposed to opinion. I agree with Ungtss' evaluation and have changed the proposal back to paradigmatic hegemony. Consensus is only good if the consensus agreed upon is reasonable. In this case, it was not. Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VorpalBlade - since Ungtss wanted the pages linked why did you revert this opening factual statement by calling it "POV"? MPLX/MH 19:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States has been funded by Howard Ahmanson, Jr through his financial support of Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial and the original "wedge theory" behind this movement. Johnson is also a member of the Discovery Institute which is also funded in part by Ahmanson in order to promote the movement."?

Proposal 4 (Earlier consensus, with some minor changes)

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students all the relevant scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The term was coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, but the policy has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other organizations. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Proposal 5 (Joshua's)

"Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes a education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The movement is designed by its proponents to present an alternative to the paradigmatic hegemony in evolutionary biology without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy."

New Comments

I prefer Proposal 4 to Proposal 5. I could live with Prop. 5 with some changes, but I think Proposal 4 is better, and is a better starting point for discussion on other changes. I am also fine with using the exact Proposal 4 from above as a starting point. --VorpalBlade 13:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think both proposals are just fine -- in line with npov and factually accurate -- however, I think proposal 4 is superior, because it adopts a more neutral tone on some issues (like paradigmatic hegemony) and identifies where the term came from. Ungtss 13:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4 has a lot of NPOV problems including a tacit assumption that there is scientific evidence against evolution and it also doesn't mention the appropriate political action characterization. Joshuaschroeder 15:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua 161.112.232.22 15:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how Proposal 4 includes any such tacit assumption; it quite clearly states that the belief that there is scientific evidence against evolution is held by "proponents". On the other hand, I think the "paradigmatic hegemony" language in Proposal 5 is biasing and should be eschewed. Kelly Martin 16:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Teach the Controversy advocates giving students more than just scientific information as scientific is defined. So proposal 4 is actually tacitly stating that there is scientific evidence to support a controversy when it is clear there isn't. Read, for example, the Ohio lesson plan and note that a lot of the information included in the plan is not scientific evidence but rather philosophy. Joshuaschroeder 19:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a complaint about Teach the Controversy itself, not a complaint about the proposed lead paragraph language. Kelly Martin 19:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua is quite right and I've been arguing the same point all along. These people can claim there's a scientific controversy if they want to, but they can't state that there is one in an NPOV encyclopedia. Of course, if one takes time to read the relevant literature it's perfectly evident that what they want to teach as scientific evidence against evolution is a combination of philosophical/religious viewpoints combined with misrepresentation of the facts. Ian Pitchford 19:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing in Proposal 4 that states (or implies) that there exists a "scientific controversy" over evolution. So your objection to Proposal 4 is, as far as I can tell, ill-founded. Kelly Martin 19:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

How could you advocate teaching it without implying that it exists? Ian Pitchford 20:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither I nor the text in Proposal 4, above, are advocating teaching anything. Are you so adamantly opposed to Teach the Controversy that you are unwilling to even allow the encyclopedia article to accurately present what the proponents of this policy are proposing? If so, I believe you should be abstain from editing here on the grounds that you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Kelly Martin 20:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this expression of your beliefs. I remain of the opinion that no one could read proposal 4 without concluding that "teach the controversy" is a movement to teach scientific evidence about a scientific controversy, i.e., scientific controversy over the status of evolutionary theory. This description implicitly supports a false claim and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Proposal 5 is superior for all the reasons given by its advocates above Ian Pitchford 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is contrary to fact, then, because I've read it several times and I haven't come to that conclusion at all. Nevertheless, it's quite obvious that there remains no consensus for either Proposal 4 or Proposal 5. Is there a possible compromise? I must confess that I do not understand the use of "paradigmatic hegemony" in Proposal 5, or why the pro-evolutionists prefer it to Proposal 4, which to my eye seems more critical of Teach the Controversy than Proposal 5. Kelly Martin 21:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ian, Prop 4 contains the language you suggested we put in, namely, "as described by its advocates." This makes very clear that the description of the movement is their description, including their beliefs about the evidence. (And I thought a good way to do it while still keeping it neutral.) As Kelly notes, a good encycl. article has to include a neutral description of that.

Monk, do you have an opinion on which intro (4 or 5) is the best version to work from going forward? --VorpalBlade 21:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept proposal 4 accept proposal 5 in the sense that it should serve as starting point from which to fold some of proposal 5 4's salient points into. I think that if we can do that we'd be able to reach some form of consensus here. Just to keep everyone's expectations realistic here, we should all get used to idea that in reaching consensus each of us will undoubtedly find things that we will object to but we will have to accept. Pick and choose your battles wisely, here. None of us should squander the group's goodwill over points that have little likelihood of surviving. As long as the intro presents the significant details and POVs in a factual and balanced way, we should not get so hung up that it impedes progress. I'll take a swack at rolling up proposal 5 into proposal 4 and post it below. FeloniousMonk 07:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not acceptable VorpalBlade because the difference between facts and opinion is not clear. This is a very, very basic requirement for an encyclopedia. Does anyone know why the clear consensus vote in favor of merger with the DI article is being ignored? Ian Pitchford 21:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 6

OK, as I said above, I've folded the salient points from the two proposals together (added one of my own). Call this proposal 6 if you like:

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The term was coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, both of which have as a matter of published policy sought to present an alternative to the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy. Teach the Controversy policy has been endorsed and promoted by other supporters of the Discovery Institute's efforts.

Thoughts, suggestions, flames? Though my effort above notes DI's and Johnson's role and agenda in promoting TTC, I specifically left out their religious basis for that agenda, as the reader finds that out soon enough further down in the article and we should. FeloniousMonk 07:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think Prop 4 is the best of the three. Monk's version has potential. There are things I would definitely want to change. The statement "sought to present an alternative to the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms" is really not accurate, because they support teaching evolution, and they repeatedly state they want more about evolution taught. "Sought to present an alternative methodology for the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms" would work. I also don't think the phrase "often through their efforts" is necessary or helpful and is POV. It's like saying "many scientists accept the theory of relativity through the efforts of Einstein." I may have some other problems with it, but I will stop there for now and see what others have to say.

I second Monk's comments on seeking consensus. Can you feel the love? --VorpalBlade 14:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oh -- i'm feelin' it:). Would Mr. Monk accept your proposed changes to his version in the name of seeking consensus? (schroeder will be out of this discussion until at least 1:50 utc -- he has been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3RR). Ungtss 14:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Big fan of Prop 6. All apologies to jschroeder, but that "paradigmatic hegemony" kept making MEGO. What if the last sentence read "The policy has been endorsed and promoted by other organizations, although as of 2005 the Discovery Institute is still the primary source for Teach the Controversy theory and resources." Soundguy99 02:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the proposal's last sentence to make it clearer and more NPOV. This version is much better. Joshuaschroeder 15:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this change makes it worse. It is an insult to those who support the policy but not because they are "supporters" of the DI. Very POV. There is no factual basis of this, and we shouldn't try to read minds. --VorpalBlade 16:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My latest edits

1. I've corrected the headers to Wikipedia style, and corrected a couple of typos.
2. I've removed an editorial question.
3. I've again removed the 'GC' template; not only is it unnecessary, given the PoV and VfD already there, but it should go on the Talk page (Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes: "Like the article messages above, these messages are intended for editors not readers and should go on the talk page. Sadly sometimes these messages are the only way to placate warring editors and they end up on article pages. Please minimize such cases. Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for readers, not a playground for editors."). And edit summaries saying things like "Don't dare remove this" should be eschewed as unnecessarily aggressive and combative. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the basis of your reasoning, perhaps you'd also support the removal of the "disputed" tag, which falls under the same category and policy? Ungtss 22:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should, though the rubric says "Please minimize such cases"; by removing one of them, I'm reducing such cases. As this article is the scene of warring editors, leaving one of them is probably the only way to placate both sides. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then i suggest, if we're leaving one, and given the choice between which one to keep and which one to remove, we leave mr. rednblu's, since it is less conspicuous, and contains a link to content. What do you say? Ungtss 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Care to justify your reversion without explanation, or answering me on the talkpage? You wouldn't be trying to suppress Mr. RednBlu's call for dialogue on this topic, would you? Ungtss 22:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you put back in the editorial question that I removed, with the summary "Reverted edits by VorpalBlade to last version by Rednblu" Then three minutes later, you took it out again. Can you explain why my edit needed to be reverted when you then made the same change? --VorpalBlade 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Ungtss's rather hasty response) With regard to which one should be left, I'd say that the 'PoV' one is more informative to the reader, while the 'GC' one is more informative for (and is aimed more obviously at) editors. I've thus returned the former.

With regard to VorpalBlade's question, it's a bug in the admin's rollback function; very occasionally, if someone makes an edit while the rollback is going through, it's that edit that gets rolled back. Very irritating for all concerned, especially as the admin receives no indication that anything untoward has happened, so often doesn't realise that there's a problem. In this case, you removed the question manually just as I was removing it by a rollback, and the effect was that we cancelled each other out; that's why I went back and did it manually. (Actually, I didn't know that that was what had happened until I read your somment above; I just discovered that the question was still in the article, couldn't work out why, so edited again.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will accept your explanation that it was a mistake, but I am still a little confused. My edit was 6 hours before yours, and you added the comment "Reverted edits by VorpalBlade to last version by Rednblu" which makes it seem that you knew what you were doing. My only edit was to remove that one question. --VorpalBlade 23:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you check the dates more carefully, you'll see that they don't make much sense; there seems to be something wrong with the automatic sig.-dating process. The edit summary is the wording produced automatically by the rollback. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theistic realism

Can people take a look at the Theistic realism article and help work out a solution to how that article should proceed? We are running into similar problems there as we are here, and people's help would be appreciated. Check out Talk:Theistic realism for more. Joshuaschroeder 01:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"actual overview"

out of curiosity, mr. monk, why is a personal research section starting with "much of the success of the agenda is due to johnson" and an exposition of the wedge agenda an "overview," while a 3 point policy proposal and 5-point policy justification by the man who presented this proposal to the ohio board is not?

1) meyer is in DI, so his "expositions" are as good as it gets.

2) he proposed the policy to ohio, so he knows what he's talking about.

3) your "overview" is personal research nonsense that doesn't explain the proposed policy, as described by proponents of the policy. mine does.

4) in short, my overview is a straight-from-the-horse's-mouth overview of the policy, and yours is "What Mr. Monk thinks they're really after." Any thoughts on this conundrum? Ungtss 04:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss' logic is particularly faulty here. Firstly, an overview is a summary or review of an entire topic, not just one person's role in it. Ungtss' attempt at the overview is fatally flawed because he neglects to address any part of the history, development, successes and failures of the movement other than one: Meyer's role in Ohio. Only the most woefully obtuse on the history of the movement or most wishful of thinkers would argue that Meyer is all there is to to the TTC movement or that somehow his one time in the limelight is representative of the entire movement's history. Any factual and complete overview of the movement will not present one man's justification for proposing a lesson plan to a school board as a summary of the movement. Ungtss' reversion's edit comment does just that [4]. Thirdly, my overview is well supported by and provides numerous cites to outside sources on both sides of the issue, presents both sides factually and fairly, and is well supported by the other related articles it links to at wikipedia. Ungtss' overview comes up woefully short on all counts in comparison; other's will see that for themselves here, despite his bluster.

Ungtss challenges the well supported statement found in my summary "Much of the Teach the Controversy agenda and success is directly attributable to the efforts of the Discovery Institute, and in particular, Johnson." Yet in each of his next four sentences he goes on tout the role of Stephen Meyer, a director of the Discovery Institute! Is not Meyer an officer in the Discovery Institute? As for Phillip Johnson's role, no one could be any more significant to the movement than he is:

1. Johnson coined the term "teach the controversy" in his book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" which led directly to the Discovery Institute (of which Johnson is an officer) taking up the initiative by announcing a "teach the controversy" strategy by the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer [5] following his presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. that started the movement.
2. Johnson set out the road map of the wedge strategy in his book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism". [6].
3. Johnson wrote the original text of the Santorum Amendment.
4. Johnson currently serves as a the Program Advisor to the Discovery Institute [7]
5. There are literally dozens more critical roles that Johnson has played that were critical to the success of the Teach the Controversy movement; father of intelligent design, leading author of key science and education policy papers and statements for the Discovery Institute [8] and Access Research Network etc...

Here at this article just as in the public arena those who would seek to have us and the public believe that the TTC movement is not a veiled anti-science, religious ideologically-driven social strategy will try to deny that those participants whose theological motivations can no longer be plausibly denied are not party to the movement. But the facts are that the Discovery Institute provided the State of Ohio with its lesson plan and a quick once-over of the Discovery Institute, its Center for Science and Culture, and its past mission statements lay bare the lie in that claim.

I'm re-inserting my summary, and in the interest of fairness I'll incorporate Ungtss' text as well, though it is really misplaced in an overview as others will no doubt note. Should Ungtss continue to insist that it is unacceptable, I'll insist that we return to the overview content that existed prior to his attempt at revisionism and spin and we'll start all over; but either way, Ungtss' overview is no overview at all and so will not pass muster for completeness, factual accuracy, or balance. FeloniousMonk 05:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with what is there at the moment, since it says "the actual goals of the Teach the Controversy movment are to return the teaching of Creationism". Johnson has denied this quite emphaticly, as a quick perusal of the links will show. You may believe that he is lying, but unless there is no contention in the matter the text should read "Opponents contend that the real goals..." or something similar. The mission statement linked to above says nothing about creationism, or about science for that matter. It talks about the "overthrow of materialism" (i.e. the philosophy that nothing exists except matter), which is hardly a surprising goal for a Christian organisation. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johnson's own published words do not support your claim:

"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." -- Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001, as found on the Discovery Institute website no less[9] FeloniousMonk 16:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't read anything in what you wrote above about teaching creationism. You may deduce that Johnson believes in creationism, but quite another to say he would enforce it's teaching. DJ Clayworth 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is creationism, it's just less explicit then biblical creationism, in that it does not attempt to identify who the creator actually is. That makes the teaching of intellgient design, the subject of Johnson's quote I provided, the teaching of creationism, just in a less explicit form. Consider what Johnson is saying here: [10] And clearly here he connects the dots between his advocacy of intelligent design and what is hoped for in its results:

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," -- Phillip Johnson

Clearly he is refering to creationism. You're also failing to take into account the content of the Discovery Institute's CSC's former mission statement, which reads: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the supernatural." FeloniousMonk 22:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precisely:). the 1st amendment says two very important things: public schools can't push or suppress religion, but outside the state, you can say, promote, advocate, argue, and push just about anything you want. i think johnson is spot on. He knows the law and (unlike the evolutionists) is willing to follow the rules. i think if we got TTC that would be sufficient to be consonant with the first amendment (at present, the teaching of evolution SUPPRESSES religion by teaching some students that their religion is wrong) -- ID and evo in concert would be nice, but unnecessary. i would never support the teaching of full-on biblical creationism in schools. science teachers who despised the idea would make a mockery of it. this "wedge to take over everybody's mind" thing is patent conspiracy theory nonsense. Ungtss 21:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hence, the attempt to portray creationism as theologically neutral intelligent design. Your claim that there is no theological subtext or motivation for many of the principals furthering the TTC agenda rings hollow, as does your claim that it's merely a "conspiracy theory".

I've just finished reading Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (Robert T. Pennock (ed.) Cambridge and London, MIT Press, 2001) in which Pennock states unequivocally: "specifically, ID advocates try to obscure (various facts) in an elaborate smoke and mirrors show...hoping to fool the diverse audiences to which they are playing [Pennock, p. 666]. And clearly few are fooled in the public arena, judging by the number of articles that have no problem in making the connections: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Further, the Discovery Institute's own staff's statements proves their motive is largely religious:

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." -- William Dembski of the The Discovery Institute, quoted, Church and State Magazine, May 2002

Hardly a "conspiracy theory"... FeloniousMonk 22:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<Firstly, an overview is a summary or review of an entire topic, not just one person's role in it.>>

My intro did did describe "one person's role in it" -- it described the policy itself. Your version, by contrast, is primarily concerned with the sociological roots of those proposing the policy, and buries the policy itself later down. this article is about the policy, and as such the policy should be described first. while less subtle, your edits remain an effort at ad hominem -- to spend the majority of the reader's energy learning about the allegedly "twisted little fundamentalist Christian minds" of those promoting the policy. does this approach not strike you as unsound? Why not describe the policy first, and then discuss the roots of the policy? Ungtss 14:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the Teach the Controversy movement, of which the policy is only a part. Other parts being its participants, methods, history, and origins. In other words: who, what, when, where and why. That is what my overview presents.

As for it being some sort of ad hominem, I only present relevant facts and quotes supported by links to credible supporting references. That lets the reader make their own conclusions. If that conclusion is in anyway damning of the participants motives, then that may just be because their motives are transparent. Reading articles in the press, it's clear not many are buying that there isn't a significant fundamentalist Christian component and agenda to the TTC movement: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] FeloniousMonk 16:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear! Ian Pitchford 18:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The movement cannot be understood without first understanding what they are saying. i'm not proposing you delete your ad hominem stereotyping -- that would be asking for too much intellectual honesty. but i must insist that you describe the idea before you lay on all your hackneyed stereotypes. this movement cannot be understood without first understanding the idea that drives it. then after that, lay on all the nonsense you want. i always find it amusing to be stereotyped as a fundamentalist christian, especially since i have nothing in common with them, as they'd let you know as quickly as i would. Ungtss 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The insults are uncalled for. I do not see where anyone has said you are a fundamentalist Christian. FeloniousMonk 22:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i apologize. sometimes i get emotional and lose my cool. i only wish that the discussion of this idea could be carried out on the merits of the ideas, rather than irrelevent ad hominem concerns. fundamentally, the "fundamentalist christian component" to TTC is irrelevent. it is only the policy that matters, because it is only the policy that is being proposed, and only the policy that is being considered for enactment. i wish this article could focus on the merits of the policy. it is, after all, the best for all concerned. people recognize ad hominem when they see it. it's not persuasive to anyone who doesn't already want confirmation of their own stereotypes. if you want to promote your pov, you need to get to the merits of the matter. Ungtss 22:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be the merits of the policy to teach lies to children about the scientific status of evolutionary theory (whilst encouraging them, inter alia, to vandalize their textbooks) in order to advance a conservative Christian fundamentalist agenda? Ian Pitchford 22:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no one is advocating teaching lies. they are advocating teaching scientific arguments made for and against the grand theory. here's an effective approach that will advocate your views here.

1) the arguments made against evolution are fringe and misleading to students.

2) bringing these arguments into the classroom would involve teaching arguments that have been thoroughly refuted, which would be deceptive

3) no scientific arguments have been made against evolution -- they are all philosophical, because they are not falsifiable.

etc. etc. etc. There are a good number of arguments to be made against the policy. you're not making them. you're talking about "teaching lies to advance a fundamentalist agenda." it's mere rhetoric, and nobody's buying it. if you want to be persuasive, focus on the merits of the policy itself. Ungtss 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you refer to as "irrelevant ad hominem concerns" Discovery Institute calls policy and strategy. I suggest reading Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (Robert T. Pennock (ed.) Cambridge and London, MIT Press, 2001). Pennock states the problem succinctly and unequivocally: "specifically, ID advocates try to obscure (various facts) in an elaborate smoke and mirrors show...hoping to fool the diverse audiences to which they are playing." [Pennock, p. 666]. Many credible, nominally neutral publications have noted in many articles I linked to earlier that notable TTC/ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski, and Meyer have an obvious history of hiding behind a lot of skillful ambiguity and engaging in intellectual sleight of hand. There's absolutely no reason that that should not be noted in the article, especially considering how prevalent the observation is in the popular press. FeloniousMonk 22:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, those arguments against the DI's tactics in promotion of ID are not relevent to this policy. there is a big difference between things argued in school and out of school. this is about a specific policy proposed for public school. focus on that. Ungtss 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Policy' is only half the story. The other half being the methods and processes by which any policy is implemented. How policy is implemented and how that implementation is viewed and reviewed by the public and the experts is highly relevant to the article. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's good. limit yourself to methods of implementing this policy and all will be well. how much of the ad hominem is related to the implementation of this policy? Ungtss 23:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem. Just well supported, cited and attributed facts. FeloniousMonk 01:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

facts relevent only to discrediting the source of TTC, DI, rather than bearing any relation to the merits of the policy itself. But it's okay. the facts are cited and attributed, and balancing facts are also given, so i'm content with the article as is, if everyone else is. Ungtss 02:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As FeloniousMonk says there are plenty of well supported, cited and attributed facts and you acknowledge that balancing facts are given - at last count I found around twenty-six links to the Discovery Institute website in the article and there are large sections of text justifying the DI policy. I don't see any further grounds for complaint by the advocates of this movement. In fact I think the opponents could have been much harsher with full justification. The Ohio lesson plan, for example, is full of reference to works that are indeed full of lies, just read the detailed review of "Icons" at TalkOrigins, which concludes "through most of the book, virtually every sentence contains some sort of illegitimate slant, whether quoting a scientist out of context, or leaving out crucial pieces of information, or presenting a nonexpert opinion as an authoritative one, or simply spewing out unsupported exclamations of doubt, derision, and "dogmatic Darwinism!" Icons is an impressive bit of propaganda, and frankly, Jonathan Wells is probably the slickest operator that the antievolution movement has ever produced. His book, packed with quotes and authoritative declarations, mangling topic after topic in rapid succession, is a calculated attempt to overwhelm the reader by sheer diversity of material; even the biologically educated reader is not likely to have the necessary background to spot all of Wells's tricks." [22] and see the correspondence between Wells and Thomas and Johnson of NMSR in 1999 [23], which indicates that Wells knew his claims were wrong before he even published his book. The claims about peppered moths and embryos are lies. The facts of the matter are completely clear. Ian Pitchford 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm content with the article. however, i wasn't aware that talk.origins had a monopoly on reality. i won't get into the details because they are irrelevent, but most of that article assumes the evolutionary paradigm, rather than evidencing it, which is what wells's critique is in the first place. Ungtss 13:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were the one who wanted to stick to the facts! The evidence of Wells' dishonesty couldn't be clearer. Ian Pitchford 17:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i want to stick to the relevent facts, and i want to present them in an npov way. that means only critiquing TTC, its policy, presentation and promulgation, and only critiquing it by attributing those critiques to cited, referenced people who have made them. that's all, man. Ungtss 23:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick note on Poll vs Majority vote

Some folks got confused by my wording above. It's ok to state your preference or "vote" in a poll. What's not permitted is to hold a majority vote on a matter, since that doesn't really help with consensus-forming ;-) .

See Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines for details. Note that we're bending those rules a little here, because we don't actually want to disrupt wikipedia to make a point either.

Finally, note that people voting on VFD might not get the result they expect (because on VFD, "merge" is actually shorthand for "keep, and suggest article be merged") . What typically happens at the end is that an admin or user drops by, says "Ok, so that's a keep", and puts a message here "I suggest you merge", which doesn't help much! :-P

I hope that clears things up for folks!

Kim Bruning 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

generally good ...

but why this this:

<<Proponents note that the response seems directed not at the actual pedagogical policy, but rather the belief the it "masks an anti-evolution agenda" despite the "apparently innocuous statements". They assert that this is another example of arguing against a straw man rather than addressing the actual policy.>>

deleted? Ungtss 22:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pitchford, why did you revert my restoration of the above statement without explanation? Ungtss 23:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You've just deleted my explanation accidentally. Firstly, proponents don't note anything of the sort do they? This is just an editorial claim and isn't appropriate here. Secondly, of course the comment isn't aimed at the pedagogical policy because from the mainstream perspective that policy makes no sense at all. It's inevitable therefore that the comment is aimed at the intentions of those proposing the policy. This is hardly a straw man argument; it's the core of what we've been arguing about here. No one in the mainstream is going to start discussing "teach the controversy" in the terms of its advocates. Ian Pitchford 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

<<This is just an editorial claim and isn't appropriate here.>>

i propose we have a policy on "editorial claims" that applies equally to both sides. would you agree that "your side" has a good number of editorial claims of its own? Ungtss 23:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

<<Secondly, of course the comment isn't aimed at the pedagogical policy because from the mainstream perspective that policy makes no sense at all.>>

That's non-sequitur. if a policy makes no sense, you point that fact out, and explain why. making ad hominem claims about the motives of those proposing the policy is neither persuasive nor meaningful.

<<It's inevitable therefore that the comment is aimed at the intentions of those proposing the policy.>>

That, sir, is most definitely not inevitable. Ungtss 23:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

References to published books, articles, draft legislation, stated goals etc as well as to political affiliations, funding arrangements and campaign tactics etc are all legitimate ways of assessing a political movement. People have a right to know what they're voting for if they back "teach the controversy" and it's most certainly not an improvement in science education. Ian Pitchford 23:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

johnson and DI are not running for office. the only thing people are voting for is the policy itself. Ungtss 00:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

And people wont be able to judge that policy without understanding its roots and the consequences of its implementation, for example in the creationist Ohio lesson plan. Ian Pitchford 10:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

no complaints regarding ohio. that's highly relevant. Ungtss 13:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

editorial claim

consider:

<<Critics have responded by pointing out that the goals of the wedge and Teach the Controversy for each forum are one and the same, and that Johnson has spoken publicly many times in favor of "the truth of the Bible" over that of secular science and materialism. Critics also allege that the proponent's compliance with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution has the net effect of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that this is parallel to and consistent with the creationist agenda of creationist fundamentist Christians, which comprise much of the support for intelligent design.>> Ungtss 23:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The Ohio lesson plan is evidence that these two supposedly separate goals are indeed one and the same. Ian Pitchford 23:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

only through the filter of your personal research -- i'm not disputing the presence of this text in the article. i'm simply arguing that you shouldn't argue for the removal of "editorial comments" against your side while supporting the maintenance of those on your side. Ungtss 00:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Ohio lesson plan is full of references to material produced by the Discovery Institute and recommends the study of sources on intelligent design even though the Ohio State Board of Education said specifically that adoption of the science standards does "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design". These are facts, not editorial comment. Ian Pitchford 10:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In which case, schools and teachers still have discretion over whether to teach it or not. DI + Johnson are powerless. if schools and teachers reject their materials as being bogus, then that will be the end of it, per the policy. Ungtss 13:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. The wording of most "Teach the controversy" drafts does not say it is teacher discretion as to whether the "controversy" should be taught. Rather it is stated as a mandate. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

you misunderstood. teachers are required to teach facts critical of evolution, but are permitted, not required, to teach ID. the discussion above was about teaching intelligent design. teaching intelligent design is not required by TTC. Ungtss 21:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That didn't stop the Discovery Institute from misrepresenting to the State of Ohio that the "Santorum Amendment" was part of the Education Bill, and therefore the State was obligated to teach ID as part of its biology curriculum. See the Political Action subsection. ID is part and parcel of the TTC movement: it is a central tenet of the originators of TTC, the Discovery Institute; Johnson, Wells, Dembski, etc. And ID literature figures prominently in the bibliography of the Ohio Model Lesson Plan proposed by the Discovery Institute and adopted by the state and now provided to teachers as suggested curricula. How many teachers follow the state's lesson plan is yet to be seen, but it's safe to say many will considering alternative lesson plans generally need approval before implementation. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, your error is assuming that because a group supporting a policy supports other policies, that the policy in question is tainted with the other policies. consider a fundamentalist christian who supports the establishment clause. he doesn't want the state establishing a religion. he's got all kinds of religious goals of his own in the wider society, but his goals for the state are limited to the establishment clause. should we then argue "The establishment clause is evil! it's supported by fundamentalists???" Ungtss 16:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You're cherry picking. You are willfully ignoring the policy statements made by the Discovery Institute [24] [25], the very specific inclusion in the Ohio Model Lesson Plan of pseudoscientific ID literature written by the Discovery Institute, to mention the personal statements endorsing both the TTC agenda, ID, and evangelical Christianity, almost in the same breath, made by Johnson, Dembski, et al:

• "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." -- William Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.
• "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." -- Phillip Johnson, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001. [26]
• "Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," -- Phillip Johnson [27]
• "Father'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. [28]
• "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism." -- 1997 Mission Statement of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture.

FeloniousMonk 18:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

(This is a reply to the above, but I haven't got time to type that many colons.) I think you guys may be arguing over nothing. The point is not whether "Teach the Controversy" has the same goals as the Discovery Institute, the point is that critics allege it (and substantial numbers of them, not just the nutcases). Critics do allege this, so shouldn't the paragraph stand? DJ Clayworth 18:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for bringing us back around to the original issue. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD

On April 22, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teach the Controversy for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

PoV & edit summaries

Editors should remember not to make attacks on other editors; attacks in edit summaries are particularly deprecated (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). I've just reverted to User:Joshuaschroeder's version; perhaps User:Ungtss, if he disagrees with what Joshuaschroeder has done, perhaps he could discuss it, or at least edit more thoughtfully. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the edit summary was not insulting, it was a statement of pov, and whose pov it was. labeling people as "fringe scientists" without attribution is so obviously derogatory and schroederpov as to not require discussion. Ungtss 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you think that an edit is PoV, then change it (preferably with an explanation on the Talk page), but reverting the whole set of edits, with an edit summary that attacks another editor by name, isn't acceptable. Repeating the insult here doesn't help. Why you think that that kind of sloganising is useful I can't imagine, but please drop it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By definition, ID/creation science advocates are fringe science advocates. Read the refered to page if you don't believe me. In fact, fringe science may be giving them more credit then they deserve. They might be considered to be more bad science or junk science.Joshuaschroeder 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Labeling people as fringe scientists; when they are fringe; doesn't exactly qualify as pov. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joshua's edits

We need to stick to the consensus intro (see long history above), or work out edits here. The current "opponent" paragraph already makes many of the points that Joshua wants to stick in the "proponent" paragraph. That is where they belong. These kinds of points belong in the "opponents" paragraph.

Let's discuss here before these are done, to avoid another edit war. --VorpalBlade 7 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Please enumerate what is wrong with my edits. They are NPOV, they are correct and they add valuable information. Joshuaschroeder 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

the edits describe people as fringe scientists, a clearly derogatory term, without attribution. don't play coy. you can't reinvent reality to suit your wishes. Ungtss 8 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Please read the page on fringe science. By definition, the scientists at the discovery institute are at best fringe scientists. Please do not remove facts such as this.

I think we should try to untangle the two paragraphs as much as possible to seperate out the two points of view, but that doesn't mean that we can't qualify statements like "continuing debates in the scientific community," which is my biggest problem with the original version. However, the inserted sentence about fringe scientists starts delving into criticisms. To try and qualify without criticising I've added "what they call" before that phrase. Just explaining my logic so you can understand that I'm trying to offer a compromise in the edit war. --8 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

looks good to me:). thanks:). Ungtss 8 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

Laura's change is fine with me too. I moved one other sentence.--VorpalBlade 8 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Not fine. It is not "criticism" to describe fringe scientists as fringe scientists. I am reinserting the two factual sentences. Joshuaschroeder 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

glad to know you're still here telling everybody what's fact and what's not. here's my token comment, repeating the same clear rule of npov you love to hate. "fringe scientists" is a derogatory term, and the characterization is highly disputed. if you want to write biased articles, get a blog. Ungtss 04:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please show me who disputes that the scientists involved in the Discovery Institute are involved in fringe science? A reference would be greatly appreciated. Joshuaschroeder 11:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You taking it as derogatory does not make it insulting. How are they not fringe scientists Ungtss? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Note. "Fringe" means "not mainstream". I.e. a "fringe scientist" is anyone who does not represent the majority view amongst scientists. Therefore it is currently the case that people at the discovery institute are "fringe scientists". This is an NPOV statement, and merely indicates that their views are not the majority position. ~~~~ 18:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

• Intelligent Design
• Intelligent Design movement
• Teach the Controversy
• Wedge strategy
• Discovery Institute
• Why discursiveness in Wikipedia sometimes makes it appear a ridiculuous soapbox. Oh sorry, not actually an article--just the thought that kept going through my head looking over this ABSOLUTELY REDUNDANT, wanted-to-read-but-cant-be-bothered article. Nice touch whoever added capitals to Teach the Controversy. A movement it does not make; a seperate article it does not justify when half-a-dozen others have it covered.Marskell 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

95% of the scientific community

User:Ed_Poor has made the outrageous claim that 95% of the scientific community being opponents of creationism is common knowledge. This is not only not supported, it is erroneous as the link to scientific community claims that the group is not well-defined as a whole. What is common knowledge is that the scientific community as a whole is an opponent to creationism in its forms when pressed. However, the 95% stat is up to interpretation of polls, what the scientific community is, and who asks the question (not to mention where the question is asked). Joshuaschroeder 18:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - if I had to pull a number out of nowhere I would probably start with 95%, but only in the throw-away sense that it is used to mean "almost all, but with some disagreement". The truth is I would hesitate to call something "common knowledge" that I don't know. Guettarda 19:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's not common knowledge, then. Here's a Newsweek poll from 1987, though:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% [29]

Belief system	Creationist view	Theistic evolution	Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults	God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone	44%	39%	10%
Scientists	5%	40%	55%

Looks like 5% of scientists accept creationism - unless I'm misinterpreting the poll. Another 40% accept evolution, but not according to Carl Sagan's "without God" definition. Uncle Ed 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Does being a theist automatically group you as a "opponent of creationism"? By using the word "opponent" it makes me think they don't believe in God's participation. I wonder what the numbers would have been if the "theist" group was not included. Ed, you may be pushing a badly worded question that hinges on a 10,000 year dividing line. - Tεxτurε 22:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, theistic evolution "can still be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species". That would bring the total of "opposing creationism" to only 55%. - Tεxτurε 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is just the kind of issue we all need to bat around. I don't know WHO is an "opponent of creationism" because I don't know (a) what everyone believes and (b) what terms they describe their beliefs in. I want to read an encyclopedia article about it, but no one in the entire world has written this article yet. Everyone's a partisan, everyone's trying to get his own side to win.

We need articles that give an unbiased view. Uncle Ed 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the poll, 45% (and I suspect that number is low, given the tendency of pollsters to write the polls to favor the results they want) are creationists. -Which is another good reason that there should be an evolutionary creationism page...Pollinator 13:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

These polls are entirely irrelevant. In science it makes no difference what you believe, the only thing that counts is what you can prove. Moreover, the opinions of those that haven't studied evolution are irrelevant as well. Whatever the percentage among scientists (like engineers, computer scientists, historians, English professors) may be, it doesn't matter. The only opinions that matter are from those that studied the issue at hand. Among those, support for evolution is much higher than 95%. There was a politician in South Carolina who wanted to have a scientist speak out against evolution. In the entire state he couldn't find any university biologist that shared his view, he had to fly one in from somewhere else. That's a good indication of how rare the opposition to evolution really is among scientists. MvH Feb 28 2006.

Opening paragraphs

Recent edits to the opening paragraphs (by people on opposite "sides") do not seem to me to be improvements. Concerning the intro as it currently stands as of late evening, 2005-12-12 UTC, I remark that

• "Teach the Controversy" as such isn't about redefining science, even though some proponents have made it clear in other contexts that they would like to do that;
• "introduces intelligent design to public-school science criteria" seems to me to imply that they want students to be taught ID as fact, which isn't what TtC as such is about even though doubtless its proponents would love it to happen;
• the repeated use of "controversial" is potentially confusing since the controversy in question is not the (purported) one referred to by the TtC campaign;
• the brief summary information about what "intelligent design" is really belongs on the page about "intelligent design";
• there is no need to say twice that the movement is a product of the Discovery Institute.
• the intro doesn't actually say what it is that TtC proponents purport to want.

So, round and round again we go. How about the following as a replacement for the current two opening paragraphs?

Teach the Controversy is the slogan of a political-action campaign promoted by the intelligent design movement originating from the Discovery Institute[1]. The campaign seeks to influence the teaching of evolution in public schools so that evolution is portrayed there as a "theory in crisis"; its proponents claim that the correctness of evolutionary theory is controversial among scientists, and that school students should be taught this and shown evidence that casts doubt on evolution.

Opponents of the campaign, however, say that there is in fact no scientific controversy over the correctness of evolution, that what controversies there are about the details of how it works are unsuitable for school science lessons (because too advanced and concerned with subtle details), and that there is no substantial evidence that casts doubt on evolution (or favors "intelligent design"); and that "Teach the Controversy" is intended as a first step on a road that ends with the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Gareth McCaughan 22:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding a section to controversy

The controversy section really needs another statement about why "Teach the Controversy" is such an absolutely bad idea. The students should not be the ones deciding on the curriculum; the teachers should be doing that. It is up to the highly trained professionals to decide curriculum, not students and their parents who really don't understand the issue. Anyway, "Teach the Controversy" could be expanded to such things as, "Teach the controversy about the Holocaust", or "Teach the controversy about abortion" (Yeah, that'd go over well with the evolution deniers). I only performed a cursory overview of the article but it doesn't seem to address the simple fact that the curriculum should not be decided by the layman. If this needs verifiable sources, I'm sure I can come up with some. --Cyde Weys 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the following quote from Kitzmiller could find its place in this article: "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. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (MvH Feb 28 2006).

Where is the political-action campaign?

The first sentence starts with "Teach the Controversy is the slogan of a controversial political-action campaign …". What is the address of the headquarters of the PAC? If 'PAC' is a way of saying ‘Discovery Institute’, then this sentence needs to say ‘Teach the Controversy is the slogan of the Discovery Institute …’. Pasado 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to the Discovery Institute

I don't think we really need 10 or so links all to the DI. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll prune them. JoshuaZ 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, never mind that. Cyde seems to have taken care of it. JoshuaZ 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

TC and ID

Cut from intro:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a natural process such as natural selection.

This is ambiguous. It doesn't say WHICH features are "best explained" by an Intelligent designer.

This also contradicts my understanding of ID. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our Intelligent design article say that ID theorists generally accept the concept of Natural selection? The sentence quoted above seems to imply that ID rejects natural selection, just as theology-minded creationists reject the fossil record.

Would someone please clarify these matters, repair the sentence, and then put it back? Thank you in advance! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Helping to answer my own question, I quote from the mother lode of ID (the so-called "Discovery Institute"):

• The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [30]

Seems like the main difference in our wording and DI's statement is natural science (using the link tag "natural process") vs. the DI's "undirected process". Perhaps this is a crucial distinction. --Uncle Ed 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Its possible the ID movement is effectively splintered in some way :/. Homestarmy 18:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey didn't I just see you on the CPOV wiki? --Uncle Ed 21:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I did log onto it a couple hours ago. You aren't going to start accusing me of having a conflict of interest, are you? :). No, seriously, I think the ID movement, like any other movement that has a fairly substantial (Whether scientific or not) following is bound to have some sort of semi-splinters in it. Or hey, who knows, the whole thing might really be self-contradictory, I mean on the one hand i've heard plenty of stuff about ID agreeing that full blown gooz-to-man evolution type stuff is an ongoing, real process, and on the other, well, you've got the discovery intstitute heh. Homestarmy 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Institute and public education

Is the Discovery Institute actually adding Creationism to science classes? I mean, to the extent of placing a faith-based denial of the fossil record on a par with the with the geology and physics of radioactive carbon dating?

Or is that opponents of Intelligent Design insist on classing it with creationism, as a way of discrediting it without a hearing?

I thought rather that the intelligent design movement merely wants both Evolution and ID to be given equal standing as hypotheses, to be examined and discussed and checked against the evidence in precisely the same way.

Are there indeed creationist elements within the ID movement or even specifically at DI who want to deny the fossil record or who repudiate natural selection? Or is it just that they want the hypothesis that some forms of life are too complex to have have happened without planning to be considered scientifically? Like archeogistis hypothesize that the statues on Easter Island are too complex to have come about due to erosion, even though the natives no longer remember how they came into being? --Uncle Ed 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote and links in the intro

Old version:

• that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a natural process such as natural selection."

Version I tried to insert:

• that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I like having the following links:

• universe
• Intelligent designer
• natural science
• natural selection

But how can we incorporate these links without misquoting the DI? Our old version had "a natural process" where they actually have "an undirected process". --Uncle Ed 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can represent them without misquoting or quote without misrepresenting, since many natural proscesses (like evolution in this case) and not undirected. If we pointed out the error it would just make the DI look stupid. Then again, it is their fault they don't understand the terminologies involved. Jefffire 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The ID article has precisely the quote Ed provided, so I'm unclear as to why it was different here -- although I can speculate that it was changed by an ID apologist who realized (on his or her own) the point that Jeff raised above. Anyway, there's no way to get Natural Science into the mis as it wouldn't be an accurate redirect for "an undirected process". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed proposed latest changes

Ed seems to be saying that TTC is an attempt to introduce ID into the school curriculum. However, the remainder of the article says otherwise - that they aren't trying to get ID in any more (and were unhappy with the Dover decision to do so), but rather that they wanted "the controversy" taught. This was in an attempt to avoid an Edwards-style verdict. Ed's changes make the article contradictory and confusing. Guettarda 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Ed's changes were completely counter to the gist of the article and that's why I reverted it. I wonder if he even bothers reading the articles before clicking on the 'edit this page' button. FeloniousMonk 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientific community

See

• Talk:Intelligent_design#Why_the_quick_revert.3F
• Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive4#...who_include_the_overwhelming_majority_of_the_scientific_community...
• Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_10#Rejection_of_ID_by_the_scientific_community_section_redundant

Introduction too big

Now seriously, I know many editors here may be enjoying reference bombing the Teach the Controversy thing with all sorts of negative references, and really, I don't think I can stop you. But look at the introduction, it is huge. An introduction is supposed to summarize the article, not get in as many quick jabs against the subject as possible. The court case information certainly looks like it belongs in the body with only one or two sentences outlining the court difficulties the Teach the Controversy thing has encountered, and im sure there's other ways to slim down the intro, but right now, it just looks ridiculous, not even looking at the content, but simply at the sheer size of thing. Any thoughts?Homestarmy 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pared it down, moving most of the background info further down in the article. FeloniousMonk 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pared down yes, but I'd like to try to rewrite it for grammar and concision purposes. I'll try to get to it today, but I'm a bit tied up for the nonce. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

rv of changes

I changed the below because I felt it was badly worded:

• "Teach the Controversy proponents portray evolution as a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time" requires educating students about the controversy. Opponents, comprised of the majority of the scientific community..."

My try to improve the passage changed it to the following:

• "Proponents of the campaign attempt to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis" often by citing scientists criticizing apsects of evolutionary theory. They argue for "fairness" and "equal time" for the teaching of this "controversy" within academic science curriculum. Opponents, comprised of the vast majority of the scientific community..."

It was reverted as not being an improvement. Obviously I disagree, but before I revert your revert I would like you to please explain.Giovanni33 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It might just be because my internal monologue gets confused when I watch too many Voyager episodes at once, but the last three "" words seem sort of....snide. Are the "" marks inside the references explicitly? Homestarmy 05:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is factually inaccurate. "...as a "theory in crisis" often by citing scientists critizing aspects of evolutionary theory." is factually inaccurate. Mischaracterizing scientists debating the details of evolutionary theory is what is being done. FeloniousMonk 06:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)\

I agree that the citing of scientists to attempt to portray evolution as a theory in crisis is a micharacterizing the scientitsts, as it's done selectively and out of context for the actual, real argument. I did not intend for my change suggest otherwise. That they do cite scientists for this very puprose is an accurate statement, though. It does not say they characterize the scientists accurately--they certainly don't. That is why one of my changes was not that they were able to portray it as a "theory in crisis," which it is not in anyway, but that they can only 'attempt' to do so. Since I think they fail to portray the actual theory of evolution in that way, I only credit them with trying to do so, however flawed. Hence, my addition of the word, 'attempt.' I will try to craft a new wording to improve the passage text, and present it here for review, before making edits to the main article--unless others can improve the language flow as it stands. Thanks.Giovanni33 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted changes that were (a) badly worded, in places, (b) misleading, in places, (c) included at least one spelling error, and (d) changed from one acceptable usage (group as plural) to another acceptable usage (group as singular) - in matters like this we don't change things like this unless there's a very good reason. Guettarda 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the misleading issue, I addressed that, and don't think my change is misleading. But, it can be clarified further. Badly worded is what we have now with the present text, in my opinion. It certainly can be improved.
• The one spelling error was just a typo and can be fixed, not a reason for the revert. I think main valid reason is that the meaning needs to be made clear so as to not possibly mislead; FM pointed out his interpretation, which is valid since that is certainly not what I want it to say.
• Lastly, to the grammar issue about singular vs plural. The "association" (singular) is doing the rejecting and denying, not its members. Actually, you are right that both are correct, depending if one goes with British vs Amerian usage for collective nouns, but your not correct that I changed it from "group as plural" to "group as singular." Its counter-intuative but adding the "s" gives it as a singular treatment (rejects, denies), whereas ("reject," "deny") is for plural treatment of the collective noun. With collective nouns, (committee, group, team,etc), the more common usage is to treat it as a singular entity, unless it refers to individual members of the group in particular or there is specific meaning of the phrase that emphasizes semantic multiplicity (all my family, etc). When the meaning is neutral or emphasizes unity, the singular is strongly prefered. However, this rule is not followed in British usage, hence we hear, ‘The Government are considering...” In anycase, I'm fine either way, following the standard: "A group denies," "its members deny.” "The association rejects," "its members reject." I hope this makes sense as I know its an area of common confusion. If not perhaps my favorite Linguist can appear for some elucidation.:) Looking at the sentence, I'd remove both "has, and "and," changing it to: "The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., with 120,000 members, firmly rejects intelligent design and denies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy." Is there an objection to this proposed wording change?Giovanni33 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, I agree with all of your changes in the revert except one... it is my understanding that the "vast" majority of scientists do reject ID. What's wrong with that? Kasreyn 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro lacks pertinent references

While everything the intro says may be true, it still needs good references. I've commented out 3 poor references. If the points made in the intro are true, surely we can find someone who supports them.

However, in case anyone is planning a personal attack on me (accusing me of not supporting NPOV is the current favorite), let me hasten to point out that I did not DELETE the poor references. Moreover, I am hoping someone will do the necessary googling to FIND some adequate ones.

If there is a dispute over what TTC folks are trying to do, then let's cite both sides of the dispute. (Before attacking me, everyone take a vote: how many people think the article should remain "neutral" on the question of what TTC folks are trying to do? And how many want the article slanted to the POV that TTC is anti-science, or promoting Creationism or whatever?)

There, I've explained my bold edits - as I usually do, despite FM's and SA's false claims that I "revert without discussing". I'm here, I'm discussing. Now will you please stop attacking me long enough to join the discussion I've initiated? Sheesh. --Uncle Ed 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold, reckless, incorrect -- descending slope. A little hung up on the personal attack bit, too.

How do you figure they didn't support the statements, Ed?...explaining that would be a discussion. Can you possibly be any more disruptive? Sheesh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything "poor" about the references to me. Can you maybe explain why they are poor? --ScienceApologist 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please make the case for these edits:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

You seem to br ignoring the content of other, existing mutually-supporting cites, favoring a literalist approach, insisting on exact phrasing, etc. for each individual quote. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Ed has not made the case here for his deletions of existing cites I'll quickly cover each (emphasis added for relevancy):

• The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution...: The cite Ed deleted, the AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution specifically says ""Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." Furthermore, the Dover trial ruling also specifically said of teaching the controversy: "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134 and also "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. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89 Clearly this content was well supported prior to Ed's baseless objection.
• ...while promoting intelligent design Again, the two cites Ed deleted supported the statement: "From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." American Prospect Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message and "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy. There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy." Dembski, Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? Once again, this statement was well-supported and Ed's objection baseless.
• ...and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula. This passage deleted by Ed is again supported by the preceding AAAS cite: ""Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy."AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution and also again the Dover trial ruling also specifically said of teaching the controversy: "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134 and also " 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. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89 This is the third object by Ed which is groundless.

Ed's habit of raising specious objections to well-supported content and deleting first and requiring justifications later, previously discussed at length at his user conduct RFC which he's chosen to ignore, shows a pattern of disruption that has gone on long enough. I'd encourage others here to weigh in at his RFC, but Ed has chosen to blow it off perhaps it is finally time to move to the next level WP:DR. FeloniousMonk 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's move on, then. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview

As the overview was too long, repetitious and not terribly well organised I did a rather massive copy edit. I think it reads better now, but, that's just my opinion.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Shift in strategy: teaching intelligent design to teaching the controversy

Ditto. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Paragraph

The following is already covered in the Overview, and adds little to the political action section, so I removed it. If consensus is that it's really needed it needs to be reworded and shortened (and needs cites).

The Discovery Institute employs a number of specific political strategies and tactics in their furtherance of their goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with ID proponents. The Discovery Institute has been a significant player in many of these cases, providing a range of support from material assistance to federal, state and regional elected representatives in the drafting of bills to supporting and advising individual parents confronting their school boards. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm none to clear what the point is here, it seems to contradict itself (or to contradict logic, at least):

The Institute has shown a willingness to back off, even to not advocate for the inclusion of ID, to ensure that all science teachers are required to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article reads much better now. Thanks Jim. FeloniousMonk 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of references

This one is tricky, so I'm asking you guys first instead of following WP:BOLD.

Ref's 5 and 6 seem to belong with ref's 1 and 2. They support the fact that the ID movement is behind "Teach the controversy".

They have nothing to do with the claim that IDM is using TTC as a 'wedge' to get ID taught in classrooms. (Not that I'm disputing that! It's almost too obvious for words, but still should be documented - not assumed.) --Uncle Ed 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They were correct before you changed them: [34] I've changed them back and the edit you made in the process, which did not follow. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the diff you cited didn't change the order of the references. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I see that you simply added the pro-ID pov "The campaign is intended to counter a dogmatic approach to classroom instruction about evolution. Critics complain that this is intended promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula." using the existing cites, something that is not supported by them. Whereas the original content "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula." is supported by the cites and does not make the obvious mistake of repeating the Teach the Controversy campaign's proponent's spin as fact. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we are actually discussing the article. That is good. :-)

There are two major points of view about this campaign:

1. that of campaign critics
   • that the search for an 'intelligent designer' is merely spin
   • that the campaign is intended to promote ID (in general?)
   • that IDM wants schools to give kids creationist explanations for the origin of life
2. that of campaign proponents
   • that the campaign is intended to counter a dogmatic approach to classroom instruction about evolution

Now I may not have found the exact sources for IDM proponents' intent, but that's what their POV appears to be in a nutshell. If I'm describing their POV inexactly, you might help me state it better. Perhaps you know of an original source I could look at? --Uncle Ed 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is one "point of view" which is supported by both DI and critics; and then there is propaganda, aka spin control, aka bs. Have you read the Wedge document? That might help out a wee tad. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, and don't forget that William Demsbki's research assistant admitted that teach the controversy is ID: [35]. JoshuaZ 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, KC and Joshua. I will read that over the weekend, if I can "wedge in" the time. ;-) See ya Monday. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time and ours with bogus objections and pov edits again. Stop wasting your time and ours, Ed, it has become disruptive. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's wasting whose time? Just two months ago, Guettarda wrote:

• ... that TTC is an attempt to introduce ID into the school curriculum [is contradicted by] the remainder of the article.... they aren't trying to get ID in any more (and were unhappy with the Dover decision to do so), but rather that they wanted "the controversy" taught.

So don't be a WP:DICK and stop edit warring over this. All I want to do is clarify what D.I. (or IDM) is trying to do. Or failing that, what their opponents claim they are trying to do.

How is that a waste of time? I thought it was the whole point of this article. --Uncle Ed 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're reaping what you sow here. You've been the one edit warring across a number of ID related articles the last two days, something you have a very sad history of documented at your user conduct RFC Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). And there's a number of editors who have been reverting you. I think a reasonable editor would get the hint. FeloniousMonk 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a confession that you are retaliating against me for daring to oppose your campaign of pro-Evolution POV pushing? "Reaping what you sow." Are you planning to revert ALL my edits to ID related articles as some sort of quasi-divine retribution? Don't disrupt Wikipedia to conduct a vendetta. You're just going to make the Rfa harder on yourself. Stop now, while you still have a chance to return to the fold. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok folks, this argument getting out of hand :/. Homestarmy 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree slightly with Homest. However Ed I think you misintrerpted Felonious' remark. I believe that he meant that you have been edit warring and POV-pushing and what you are experiencing is simply the response of trying to correct your misguided POV pushing. Also, in at least two edits you have implied that you don't actually know much about the topic. So you should understand if Felonious and/or others get frustrated with POV pushing when you admit that you don't know much about the topic. JoshuaZ 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the correct interpretation...except maybe for "misguided POV pushing"...Ed's POV pushing is very guided...it's the methodology that appears to be misguided. An interesting psychological study. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

I think we all agree that POV pushing harms Wikipedia.

The question is, whether adding a minority point of view to an article (properly attributed to a published source) is de facto POV pushing. Here's how I see it:

• 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

Those who think that the bullet point above ought to be policy (or is policy, or shouldn't be policy), please vote below:

Agree

1. Uncle Ed

Disagree:

Other:

For the last 5 years I have doggedly stuck to the principle expressed above, and intend to stick to it until and unless stopped by an ArbCom ruling (which I will immediately appeal to Jimbo). --Uncle Ed 15:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, appeal whatever you wish to Jimbo. One would think that if you were "so tight" with Jimbo, you'd still be at least an admin, if not a bureaucrat. And please don't feed us any crap about "keeping up appearances", and the "good of the project", et cetera. Besides, based on the vision for Wiki set by Jimbo, he cannot be a dictator without violating his own vision. So where, precisely, does that leave you? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is always a mistake to involve the alpha male in a controversy such as this. The alpha always has to embody the decisions of his coalition; so I hope User:Ed Poor would organize the community before the issue reaches the alpha. User:Ed Poor has pointed to a real problem within this page. And therefore he should hold steady for a week or so and let the community work the issue. I think User:Ed Poor's solution for the outrage that his working on this WP:NPOV problem has made was a good one:

• I will limit myself to one reversion per week at the Intelligent Design article, as long as this matter goes no further in the dispute resolution process (such as RFM or RFArb). --Uncle Ed 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I hope he will think of that motto in regard to all pages having these same problems. --Rednblu 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you ask, I will register my vote above. But I think that you and I should recognize the forces that keep any Wikipedia page viable. It may be noble to make a rule "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information." But such a rule would be meaningless unless you had a dog pack as big as the dog pack of your antagonists--and as tenacious--to make sure that they did not rip out "blocks of well-referenced information" to support their own POVs.

As you imply, WP:NPOV is as simple as 1) reporting what reliable sources have said and 2) making the balance among the POVs of the reliable sources congruent with the balance of the POVs of the intelligent users of Wikipedia. But you cannot make WP:NPOV an actuality without a dog pack to keep vandals and other promoters of their own POV from ripping out the "blocks of well-referenced information."

And, as you have experienced, every dog pack is susceptible to adopting the original research of its own fad-of-the-moment that the dog pack then enforces as "NPOV"--the true religion. So rather than challenge the dog pack with the obvious wrongfulness of their actions--as the above vote would do in my opinion--I suggest it would be better to think of how to organize the whole community--since we have to deal with the reality that, on Wikipedia, it takes a dog pack to protect quality--any quality of any POV--or NPOV.

We should mobilize the whole Wikipedia community to adopt some "laws" or understandings of some operational criteria for what WP:NPOV actually means when there is a controversy--such as the controversy we have here--over which dog pack has ripped out a "block of well-referenced information." --Rednblu 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss a general guideline or policy notion, and furthermore Ed has engaged in precisely the sort of behavior he says above is wrong. Making vague general comments does not help us improve the article. JoshuaZ 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would think that the proper place to discuss a general guideline like User:Ed Poor's would be in the immediate proximity of the situation with which that policy would deal. If you do not find the comments here to be useful to you in improving this article, then I suggest you should make your comments in a section different from this one. This section explicitly and exclusively is about improving this article by making it WP:NPOV. --Rednblu 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Er no. Generally policy matters are discussed on their pages. If he thinks this should be part of WP:NPOV he should bring it up on that page. If he wants to make a new policy proposal he should start a new page. There is no reason whatsoever to have this occur on a specific talk article space. The idea that such discussions could construct general policy is, to be blunt, absurd. JoshuaZ 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I note the insult and will not return it in kind. There are serious WP:NPOV and WP:OR problems with the current page, and I am interested in hearing anyone's ideas on how to fix those problems. --Rednblu 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

¿Insult? Where was there any insult other than one you inferred? Certainly Josh implied no insult. He stated that the methodology being employed by Ed is wrong, irrelevant to the page, and absurd. If that happens to contradict your view, then so be it, but that is hardly an insult.

Now that we've deal with the administrivia, perhaps it would be best to ask you to describe, point out, elucidate, highlight, et cetera, those items which you feel violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Caveat canes.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Attribution

The Mooney and Dembski ref's in the intro do not actually say that IDM is trying to get ID taught in schools, and Nick Matzke's analysis is just his POV (not a "fact"). --Uncle Ed 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which number footnotes are you objecting to exactly? FeloniousMonk 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In this version, #6 and #7.

By the way, the following quote by Larry Taylor of Parents for Truth in Education specifically mentions the thing you said it "didn't support":

• "I was not for removing or de-emphasizing the subject of Darwinian evolution from the science classroom. However, in my remarks I did object to the dogmatic approach to science instruction which is propagated by organizations such as NCSE, an approach characterized by an intolerance of varying viewpoints, where any alternative viewpoints are censored, and where conformity to a blind acceptance of Darwinian evolution is demanded." [36]

So your rm source Ed added was not supportive/relevant of the passage edit summary doesn't make much sense. Don't you think you should make specific objections on talk before reverting another user's contributions? You seem to regard that as some sort of rule we all should follow. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think changing the goal of the Teach the Controversy campaign from "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design" to simply parroting the pro-ID viewpoint and Discovery Institute party line that TTC is "intended to counter a 'dogmatic approach' to classroom instruction about evolution" based on one cite from an insignificant source? No. The original passage was supported by no less than 6 supporting cites covering a wide range of significant primary and secondary sources. Your change deleted half of the cites, leaving 3, 2 of which ran counter to your changes in overall tone and another which quotes a genuine nobody in the movement. And then you wonder why you get reverted? Amazing.

Larry Taylor and his Parents for Truth in Education hardly is a definitive speaker for the TTC group, they're a small-potatoes, local pro-ID outfit in Georgia. He clearly has a stake in making such a claim considering his group is concerned more about furthering its own agenda of getting ID into public school science classrooms than it is about actual science, so let's not over emphasize the significant of his op-ed piece, especially when it's to replace or run counter to such excellent sources as the AAAS's, the world's largest scientific professional organization, policy statement, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, an article in the The American Prospect, the statement from leading ID proponent William Dembski that "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity, and it is a scientific controversy." and a witness for the successful plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Compared to the significance of the long-standing sources, Larry Taylor's "Open Letter to the NCSE" is insignificant and marginally relevant, he's not central to the TTC campaign. In fact, he's not even I minor player. Your edits were totally unsupported by this cite, as is your use of the NPOV tag. Please become better read on the topic before raising a big stink again here, a lot of frustration and disruption could be avoided if you simply better understood the subject and checked your personal ideology at the door when you login. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Attribution

The Mooney and Dembski ref's in the intro do not actually say that IDM is trying to get ID taught in schools, and Nick Matzke's analysis is just his POV (not a "fact"). --Uncle Ed 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which number footnotes are you objecting to exactly? FeloniousMonk 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In this version, #6 and #7.

By the way, the following quote by Larry Taylor of Parents for Truth in Education specifically mentions the thing you said it "didn't support":

• "I was not for removing or de-emphasizing the subject of Darwinian evolution from the science classroom. However, in my remarks I did object to the dogmatic approach to science instruction which is propagated by organizations such as NCSE, an approach characterized by an intolerance of varying viewpoints, where any alternative viewpoints are censored, and where conformity to a blind acceptance of Darwinian evolution is demanded." [37]

So your rm source Ed added was not supportive/relevant of the passage edit summary doesn't make much sense. Don't you think you should make specific objections on talk before reverting another user's contributions? You seem to regard that as some sort of rule we all should follow. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think changing the goal of the Teach the Controversy campaign from "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design" to simply parroting the pro-ID viewpoint and Discovery Institute party line that TTC is "intended to counter a 'dogmatic approach' to classroom instruction about evolution" based on one cite from an insignificant source? No. The original passage was supported by no less than 6 supporting cites covering a wide range of significant primary and secondary sources. Your change deleted half of the cites, leaving 3, 2 of which ran counter to your changes in overall tone and another which quotes a genuine nobody in the movement. And then you wonder why you get reverted? Amazing.

Larry Taylor and his Parents for Truth in Education hardly is a definitive speaker for the TTC group, they're a small-potatoes, local pro-ID outfit in Georgia. He clearly has a stake in making such a claim considering his group is concerned more about furthering its own agenda of getting ID into public school science classrooms than it is about actual science, so let's not over emphasize the significant of his op-ed piece, especially when it's to replace or run counter to such excellent sources as the AAAS's, the world's largest scientific professional organization, policy statement, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, an article in the The American Prospect, the statement from leading ID proponent William Dembski that "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity, and it is a scientific controversy." and a witness for the successful plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Compared to the significance of the long-standing sources, Larry Taylor's "Open Letter to the NCSE" is insignificant and marginally relevant, he's not central to the TTC campaign. In fact, he's not even I minor player. Your edits were totally unsupported by this cite, as is your use of the NPOV tag. Please become better read on the topic before raising a big stink again here, a lot of frustration and disruption could be avoided if you simply better understood the subject and checked your personal ideology at the door when you login. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is your view of "undermining the teaching of evolution". If you personally believe that the Theory of Evolution should be taught as the only possible scientific explanation for the emergence of new species (especially human beings), then YES any other idea would undermine this.

In that case, you should quote some published source who says this:

• Mr. X asserted that the TTC campaign will "undermine the teaching of evolution" by introducing non-material explanations to a topic that our group wants kept strictly on a materialistic basis. Science should and must only explore natural causes. Scientists must not use scientific techniques or reasoning to explore the non-material world. Not because we say it doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist, but because (his reason goes here). --Uncle Ed 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of any other scientific explanation? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The best source I can direct you to, which isn't quite what you mean, is the wedge docuement, which suggests the purpose is to undermine the credibility of science. Which might be POV in the some people consider science inappropriate for a science class, but pushing the limit of reasonability there. Looking forward to your reply, i kan reed 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)/

Ikan, I couldn't get your link to work, so I skimmed another copy here. The word "undermine" does not appear.

They do, however, make it quite clear what they're up to. (This, by the way, is one reason I refuse to have anything to do with them. Listen closely, FM and both Joshuas.)

• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I don't see this as "undermining science" (as an institution) or undermining its credibility, but it does strike me as devotedly Creationist. I can't discern any difference between this and Creation Science, unless it's merely a non-Young Earth variant which accepts the Fossil record.

Perhaps a point of confusion is that they tie materialism to aspects of culture they dislike:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

I daresay they are not disinterested seekers of truth, but primarily oppose materialism because of the support it provides (as they think) for social destruction.

However, I think this article (and related ones in the ID series) should distinguish between:

• the ideas themselves (claims about the reasonableness or scientific viability of Intelligent Design)
• the motives and goals of ID promoters

ID asks people to consider non-materialist hypotheses; whereas the methodological naturalism of modern sciences refuses to consider such hypotheses

The IDM opposes materialism because they want to promote cultural and religious goals. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Ed, biology is considered a science class. DI and the Dembskiites want to introduce religious-based "theories" (I use that word very loosely) into science class. Thus, science moves from the rational to the irrational. How precisely is that not undermining science?

Second, are you in any way familiar with the establishment clause, Ed? Let me guess, you think Jefferson fucked up when pushed the idea, right? Well, whatever your opinion of it, it is the law of the land. Deal with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting the wedge document. I was stating that it established a purpose for ID(it was the discovery institute's little thing) was to break society away from science(they call it scientific materialism, which is not more than saying that ethics are tied to science which is a different issue) The beleif was if they could manipulate how science was defined, they could defeat the current version's importance to society. This is sort of what you're saying, but the modern definition of science simply does not include untestable hypotheses. Untestable but rational hypotheses are the basis of modern philosophy, not sceince. And you might indicate that the definition of science is also questionable, but between modus tollens and repeatability, you have the basis of most textbook defintions of science. the reason non-materialistic hypotheses are not scientific is repeatability. If they are not part of the natural function of things, then there is no way to set up a situation to cause it to happen(we call this experimentation). This doesn't make anything incorrect or wrong, just not within the subset of science. my point got lost somewhere in there. And i'm probably not saying anything you don't know. I'll just try to summarize: it's "undermining science" because it tries to get non-science recognized specifically as science, thus change the defintion of science. i kan reed 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, I think this article (and related ones in the ID series) should distinguish between: the ideas themselves and the motives and goals of ID promoters" Hmmm, that is exactly the POV of the Discovery Institute its movement have been promoting all along: [38] [39] (PDF) [40]. Their viewpoint is already covered here, promoting it is advocating for one pov. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case the article should say that:

• ID supporters want their ideas and motives given independent consideration
• ID opponents see the two as intertwined and insist that they be considered together

Let's not advocate "for" any particular side, but describe what the opposing sides are. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the viewpoints of both sides, a sourced example, and the relevant legal ruling to the overview section, which is where the topic of specific objections, particularly religous, is first introduced:

Along with the objection that there is no scientific controversy to teach, another common objection is that the Teach the Controversy campaign and intelligent design arise out of a Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic movement that calls for broad social, academic and political changes. Intelligent design proponents believe their concepts and motives should be given independent consideration. Those critical of intelligent design see the two as intertwined and inseparable, citing the foundational documents of the movement such as the "Wedge Document" and statements made by intelligent design constitutents to their supporters. The judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial considered testimony and evidence from both sides when he ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents and that "that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."

In the debate surrounding the linking of the motives of intelligent design proponents to their arguments, following the Kansas evolution hearings the chairman of the Kansas school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, cited in The New York Times as saying that though he's a creationist who believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, said he was able to keep the two separate:

"In my personal faith, yes, I am a creationist," ... "But that doesn't have anything to do with science. I can separate them."

Abrams agreed that:

"my personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom."

Afterward, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western Reserve University physicist and astronomer, in a New York Times essay said:

"A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board. ... As we work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our public schools, we will continue to do battle with those who feel that knowledge is a threat to religious faith ... we should remember that the battle is not against faith, but against ignorance."

References

This settles this objection. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

Cut from beginning of article:

Intelligent design "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Both the intelligent design movement (IDM) and the Teach the Controversy campaign are largely directed and funded by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

All of nearly all of this is copied word for word from Intelligent Design's intro.

References

--Uncle Ed 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reword it then, don't just delete it outright. A defintion of ID is necessary in this article because Teach the Controversy is the product of the intelligent design proponents and has sought to introduce ID into public school science classes. Not every reader of this article is going to follow a link to the ID article, and without an understanding of what ID, they will not understand the viewpoints of science education community and the scientific community in opposing Teach the Controversy. Using your own phrase, your deletion seems like viewpoint suppression. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree! I moved it here specifically to negotiate just such a rewording. That's why I didn't delete it but used the Wikipedia:Text move technique.

I'm open to any suggestions you have for rewording the moved text. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's there to reword? It looks good to me. It's consistent with the other stuff we have to say about ID, which is good. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, there's no reason to reword it. Oh wait, let's try this:

Intelligent design: God did it;

Atheistic materialistic liberal Darwinism: You're pond scum.

Does that accurately capture DI's view? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Views of both sides

This is my version. [41] Please refer to this when disputing the neutrality of the article. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MoS --> avoid single sentence paragraphs. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The only one here disputing the neutrality of the article is Ed. Please make a case that the article is POV or the NPOV tag will have to come down. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not amazingly familiar with this article, but to help out Ed, that second sentence about the undermining thing is coming from sources who, well, for whatever reason are against the Discovery Institute and their kind of thing for some reason, it doesn't seem that the "undermined" part is well-attributed to the sources inside the sentence. Homestarmy 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're only reading the last two cites, 5 and 6. Cites number 3 and 4 both specifically support the part of passage you mention "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Cite number 3, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement[42] (PDF file) says specifically " by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community." That clearly supports "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Cite number 4, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [43] says "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." This also clearly supports "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Neither cite 3 nor 4, the AAAS and the ruling of the Dover trial, mention the Discovery Institute or are opposed to it in any meaningful way. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The AAAS cite supports my version, which says that some TTC opponents regard the campaign as "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution". Unless someone considers it OR to go from:

• Some bills seek to discredit evolution; to,
• The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution

But if there are no objections on that account, I move that we go ahead and restore my version (or the part that says this).

How about this wording:

• Some opponents of the campaign, like the AAAS, say that proponents clearly intend to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The ref can be the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement [44] (PDF file). Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely object. Ed, you're once again ignoring half the evidence - the ruling of the Dover trial who's cite already supports the passage in the article.

Your suggested wording here would imply that that Dover trial judge is "some opponent of the campaign." The ruling of the Dover trial that TTC is a campaign intended to undermine the teaching of evolution [45] [46] means that presenting it as just opposed by "some opponents" violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. This is exactly the sort of willful attempt to spin or weaken the scientific community's viewpoint that has has earned you your RFAr.

The passage is accurate and extremely well-supported as it is if anyone bothers to read the cites. "The American Association for the Advancement of Science say that proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools while promoting intelligent design, a view that was confirmed by the ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial." would be accurate as well while being supported by cites 3, 4, 5, and 6. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this version. Will you put it in, or shall I? --Uncle Ed 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The version as it was before you mucked about with it was fine (which, I think, was FM's point). What version are you agreeing with? Certainly not yours I hope. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better in FM's version for the court thing to say "view that was supported", because in this day and age, since when does a single court case confirm, well, anything? Homestarmy 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That court case confirms and supports a long history of separation of church and state. Pasado 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a bit of difference between "support" and "confirm". I mean think about it, if a court case "confirms" a history, that pretty much means all history departments everywhere are wastes of space, since law type professions could just "confirm" history in decisions to make it so, and I just don't see how that possibly works out right. Homestarmy 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is it?

Okay, not to be a POV, but who's "winning?" Who has the upper hand? Just a question, a simple NPOV answer will be fine. I think that we need to at least mention who is gaining the upper hand currently. Upper hand is a fact, not a POV. Which one is right is a POV, but this is not. Thanks. --DeadGuy 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you measure winning as who is currently "in the lead" or who is gaining more ground in relation to the other. Homestarmy 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both. I just want to know which side is more likely to win in the courts.--DeadGuy 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, the evolution side has been winning before, and it doesn't appear that the Discover Institute has much chance to win anything now :/. As for who's gaining more ground in relation to the other, that depends on many factors that aren't so easy to verify, such as just how wide a net of influence each side has among the population. Homestarmy 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See-also churn

There seem to be an awful lot of edits to the "See also" section going on, all of them (wrongly, I think) marked as "minor", and -- as it seems to me -- mostly driven not by consideration of what's relevant and what isn't but by a desire to make TtC look more or less respectable by adding or removing links like "Scientific revolution" (yay!) or "Junk science" (boo!). Could the parties concerned, namely User:Portillo and User:Struct, please either desist or justify their activities here? I'm about to revert the page to the state it was in before their edits. Gareth McCaughan 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hide the evidence campaign

It's a little off topic but but it looks like the next step in the ongoing creationist campaign against biology includes hiding fossil evidence. Seriously. I wonder if the creationists here in the US will adopt this new strategy? It's pretty dang funny and they're a bit more direct and open about their motives than their US counterparts Kenya: Evangelicals Wage Anti-Evolution War. Mr Christopher 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. After all, the motto of the scared and clueless appears to be "when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in the Kenya material you found, but this is not the place for it. Have you a suggestion? The title "Hide the Fossils" seems rather POV, but if this is the title the movement is using and it can be shown from another source, we could use it. So what title do they use? Even if the title is POV, we must use the organizations or movement's name in an article about it. DGG 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right Wing?

In the Shift in Stragtegy: section there is a sentence - 'All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community as legitimate science and all four are areas of science where the right wing thinks science is wrong.' Seems to me that is equating Right Wing views with Conservative Christian views.

Now, I'm not from the US and things are a wee bit different over here but I'm not certain that sort of argument can hold water. Surely there can be non Conservative Christian Right Wingers? I know I should be bold, but I didn't want to edit and this and dive headlong into a controversy.

NatashaUK 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant

I believe Pat Robertson's comments following the Dover trial are irrelevant to this article. They are interesting, but the quote of one man judging people for who they voted for is either off-topic or pushing it. Full disclosure: I am a young-Earth Creationist. I am a conservative Christian. I am not right-wing. I do not agree with Pat Robertson and I think this comment hurt the general perception of my faith.

Af1218 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could find and cite a source that states your position - your response to Robertson's comments - I believe it would make a great addition to this article (or if not, to another related article). SheffieldSteel 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Attacking?

In an attempt to prevent an edit war, please use this talk page to discuss if the article should say "attacking" or not. Malc82 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits in question are [47]. Malc82 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that "attacking" is correct, since insisting that the belief of the Christian conservatives in question has to be treated as equal to a scientific consensus qualifies as an attack. Also, the section is specifically about the shift in strategy, which basically is an attack plan. Malc82 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got my support. Teach the controversy along with the Wedge document were created to attack science in general, and Evolution specifically. I'll revert changes where necessary. Orangemarlin 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we came up with a verbiage that wasn't as POV as "attacking" but not as weasel-worded as " to assert opinions contrary to". Good for consensus. Orangemarlin 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

tags

Poed up a couple places that need cited. A bit too full of offset quotes, this article is, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it up to speed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)