User talk:Laynerogers
|
NPOV posts
[edit]I'm sure I'll get a couple of comments concerning my two NPOV posts. I'm new to wikipedia and still figuring it all out, but to me the articles I marked were clearly biased, and per the NPOV guidelines, the fact that I think so is the only proof needed, though both articles have been plagued with POV disputes. While I do not have the time or ability to accurately rewrite both entire articles as the POV police, I think the extreme lack of neutrality warrants leaving the NPOV tag until it is done. I have contacted the Discovery Institute to make them aware of the articles in the hopes that they will be able to bring balance to the force. I do not wish to set off an edit war, but the articles as they are now are no better than critical editorials of the Institute and as such completely violate the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynerogers (talk • contribs)
- If you believe an article is not neutral, you need to substantiate this with reliable sources - not your opinion. Please review WP:UNDUE for instance, and read WP:NPOV in general more closely. NPOV doesn't mean "takes no sides" it means "represents fairly per the mainstream views". The mainstream view is that intelligent design is worthless creationism, not science, and bad theology and the Discovery Institute is a religious organization attempting to force its way into science classrooms for religious purposes, under the facade of sciencey-sounding words. The DI has been heavily criticized for this, earning the contempt of essentially all science organizations for basically trying to place faith on the same plane as empirical knowledge. I suggest a careful reading of the Dover v. Kitzmiller decision. It's actually a well-reasoned, thorough discussion of exactly why ID isn't science. Another good place to start would be Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, he does a fantastic job of walking through the trial. Intelligent design isn't science, and the Discovery Institute isn't a scientific organization - though they do try to portray themselves as such, and co-opt science to try to take advantage of its social capital. I don't see how more people, particularly the religious people, aren't more outraged by the blatant deceptions foisted on them by creationists. You are being lied to, by the Discovery Institute. Doesn't that make you angry? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me if you don't see this response, I'm still figuring out how the talk page works. It isn't just about a lack of neutrality concerning sources, it is the entire representation of the Institute that is biased. The sources are not erroneous, but neither are they strictly factual. Many of the sources are essentially opinion pieces. Most of the language of the articles are expressions of opinion, no matter how well researched the opinion is, it is still just a perspective. But that's ok, the POV label is because of the extreme lack of any unbiased representation of the actual views of the Discovery Institute.
- As to the NPOV guidelines, I feel I followed them pretty well. NPOV is not about accurately representing per the mainstream views, but accurately reporting the facts about the mainstream views, as well as any other views that may be held on the subject. From the first paragraph of the page you linked to: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides."
- A balanced article would accurately represent the stated goals and use the language of the Institute as it concerns their beliefs and ideas, not just the goals and ideals ferreted from other sources that the Institute themselves would reject. Almost the entire article is written by someone who obviously does not understand or appreciate the perspective of the Institute. They use their own language against them as a weapon to make the Institute what they want it to be, rather than what it claims to be. Almost the whole introductory paragraph is disparaging of the the institute, using words like "falsely" and "incorrectly" - words of opinion. Another example: they don't want to be called creationists, and yet the word features prominently as if it is the most accurate description of their belief, though in reality, intelligent design is a valid philosophy outside of creationism, and many proponents of ID are not traditional creationists. Even Richard Dawkins says life may have been seeded here by aliens. While I may disagree with the evolutionist perspective, I am mainly addressing the fact that the article is so heavily concerned with criticisms of DI that it fails to in any way accurately represent the DI as it would represent itself. I may think the Branch Davidians were idiots, but if I said "they followed their false-god David Koresh", I would be biased and putting forth a non-neutral pov. I should say "they believed David Koresh to be the incarnation of their god". It is not a lack of accurate reporting, it is just biased reporting. Reporting opinion as if it were fact, as opposed to giving a balanced view of both sides. The obvious goal of the majority of the editors of this article is to expose the supposed fallacy of intelligent design, not to report the various views of and on the Discovery Institute, as evidenced by their use of language as much as the subjective nature of their sources.
- Concerning my own thoughts on ID and the Discovery Institute: given your perspective, I hesititate to get into a debate here. I think we likely disagree on such fundamental levels that I would only serve as a source of frustration for you. I have read much of the Dover v. Kitzmiller decision (this afternoon in fact), and while you see it as well reasoned, I see it as fundamentally flawed. It is incredibly well reasoned if the starting point of your understanding of science is essentially materialism. But if you have a different approach to science (which actually even many non-Christian scientists and philosophers do), then it changes the entire basis for Dover v. Kitzmiller. The dueling approaches we are talking about both derive from a single point of contention - namely: is there a God? The scientific materialist approach assumes not - before all else. The "other" approach assumes yes - before all else. If there is a God, then no single scientific experiment can be considered as having a reliable control group, because there is this...thing out there that could do whatever it wants. So God cannot be a factor. The "other" approach includes God - seeks to understand and know God - and then factors in his existence to their "equations", be they scientific or philosophical. So by this approach, sure, ID may be seen as a form of religion, but also on some level there would have to be the concession that scientific materialism (the womb of Darwinian evolution) is itself a religion and subject to the same requirements of faith to adhere to. One has to believe in God, the other has to believe that there is no God - either way, it is a philosophical and religious belief.
- So no, I'm not angry with the DI, though I'm sure I don't agree with everything they do or say. I understand and appreciate their perspective. I even see much of what they do as valid science, for they include variables in their experiments that most scientists do not, namely God. The DI may take an approach that seems subversive, but in all honesty, if they truly believe what they say, how could they not? They are coming into the debate with essentially 150 years of faith against them. No one else is really trying to test or disprove Darwinian evolution - quite the contrary, there has been over a century of religious zeal to do the exact opposite. The Scopes trial put people of faith [in God] on the defensive, and did tremendous damage to the psyche of the Church. No longer were we welcome at the table for discussion, because we had fundamentally different perspectives that frustrate the very fabric of scientific materialism - what you would call empirical science. You disparage faith as something less than empirical science, but they are intricately interwoven. The Christian definition of faith is that it is the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This does not suggest that the faith is placed in something non-existent, but rather in something that is not quite grasped. Appropriately placed faith is itself an evidence of the unseen, because it has impact and effect. It is a quantifiable (though difficultly so) variable. It changes things. No scientist would undertake an experiment without faith that something would be learned, even that there is something yet to be learned. That is the essence of faith, though it is by no means blind. There are factors and variables that are easily discerned to the one who is willing to see them. You experiment because you have a hypothesis. I experimented with God, and found him. So now God is a factor in all my equations, foolish as it may seem to any who has not discovered him through their own series of rigorous experiments and tests.
- Oh, I failed to respond to the UNDUE mention above. While I would contend that intelligent design does not necessarily require traditional creationism, creationism does require intelligent design, therefore suggesting we give the intelligent design agenda of the DI less weight than the naturalistic evolutionist criticism would be to suggest that creationism is not a widely held belief. Or even intelligent design. Statistics alone disprove this. Creationism is by far a more widely held belief than proponents of naturalistic evolution, at least in the US. I do not know the statistics worldwide. The statistics within the scientific community are completely different, but then, I'm guessing the target audience for wikipedia isn't the scientific community. So yes, I agree that the naturalistic approach is given undue weight...
- --Laynerogers (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so you are obviously biased against the view that intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Seeing as the Wikipedia article is on the Discovery Institute, and the Discovery Institute itself claims there is a difference, then maybe a good source for my comments would be the website of the organization itself.
- Just because you don't agree with a source does not mean it is not a source. If you don't know what the argument is that the DI makes, then maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia on these topics. If you want to go to the ID pages, then have at it, but the DI page should be about the DI and accurately reflect the DI's stance on issues, not their stance as you prefer to see it.
- Laynerogers (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) DI is only considered a reliable source about themselves, not for the psuedo-science they claim to support. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the DI is not a reliable source for the theories that they themselves pioneer, then who is? And for the sake of this talk page, I would think that the sources they cite on the page in the link would also serve as reliable sources concerning the issue at hand: whether or not ID is proven as creationism. As long as there is debate, then your claims of pseudo-science are equally vulnerable. Just because you've picked the side you agree with does not mean you are right, nor does it mean that my assertions of a lack of NPOV are boundless. If the DI cannot be a reliable source for their criticism of the scientific community as a whole and for their work in the field of intelligent design, then the scientific community at large cannot serve as a reliable source for criticisms of the DI or in support of the theory of evolution. That is a foolish notion. If I were to assert that evolution is pseudo-science, that would not free me to disregard the perspective of anyone who claims otherwise, at least not if I hope to maintain objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynerogers (talk • contribs)
- Try scientists. Seriously, go out and read some of the criticisms of ID, the DI, and creationism in general. The National Center for Science Education has a multitude of sources. Or you could start at the Talk.origins page on intelligent design. Then there is Creationism's Trojan Horse. You could read nearly any book aimed at debunking creationism, like Why Darwin Matters. There is a multitude of webpages, including Scientific American's 15 answers to creationist nonsense. There is this page on why evolution matters. Evolution is universally accepted among real scientists. There are not two sides to the story, and the Discovery Institute has been lying to you. If you started doing a bit of reading on the topic, you'd see that. The history of life is coherent, only makes sense in light of evolution, and has never, ever supported any creationist concept. The easiest place to start is the index to creationist claims. Before you post anything else on wikipedia about creationism, intelligent design or biology, you should read that list from beginning to end.
- The DI pages would be considered primary sources about themselves, and wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources. In addition to the DI being blatant liars who engage in public relations campaigns to cloak themselves in false clothes of scientific respectability. Intelligent design is not science, and if you haven't realized that, you haven't been reading anything but the discovery institute's side. The reason ID gets zero credibility on wikipedia is because it is a propaganda campaign pretending to be science. Do any reading of anything critical, and you very quickly and clearly realize this.
- Start here, it comprehensively and simply addresses why creationism and intelligent design are simply not science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)