Talk:Andrew McIntosh (professor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Creationism / Young Earth creationism  (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force.
 
WikiProject Skepticism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Categories[edit]

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

You have removed A. McIntosh from cathegory YEC by arguing: "Already in subcat Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors". However, the AIG and YEC is not the same, hence such reasoning is quite unfit. It is demonstrable that at Andrew McIntosh (professor) page there is a statement: "McIntosh is a young-earth creationist.[3]". Does your argument hinge in an assertion that if a certain person fulfills criteria to be meber of some cathegory then he should not be placed in that cathegory? Sounds like nonesense to me, pls. explain what are you after in discussion here.--Stephfo (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. Article discussion belongs on article talk.
  2. Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors is a sub-category of (i.e. its members are a subset of the set of) Category:Young Earth creationism -- so adding the latter is REDUNDANT. Your argument that "the AIG and YEC is not the same" fails to acknowledge the fact that AIG is a YEC organisation so all "Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors" are Young Earth Creationists.
  3. See WP:Categorization: "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

YEC and AIG are not the same categories and it is demonstrable that there are numerous members in both categories.
Just have a look: YEC AiG--Stephfo (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
AiG is a subcategory of YEC. Look at the top of YEC.   — Jess· Δ 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


(edit conflict)

Category:Young Earth creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category contains articles related to Young Earth creationism.
Subcategories

This category has only the following subcategory.
A

[×] Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors (14 P)

What part of "Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors is a sub-category of (i.e. its members are a subset of the set of) Category:Young Earth creationism" and we do not include articles in both a category and its subcategory do you fail to comprehend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is demonstrably quite opposite:
Jonathan Sarfati, John Woodmorappe etc. are included in both categories, by the way, are u 100% sure McIntosh is from AiG, what is a proof for that? Is he member of both AiG and Truth in Science? Isn't it possible that AiG only invited him as speaker on some occasion?--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected both Sarfati & Woodmorappe. Whether or not McIntosh is legitimately an 'Answers in Genesis fellow or advisor' is a separate issue. Do you wish to dispute it? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarless of whether he has an official position at AIG or not, he is intimately connected with the organization. According to Ken Ham himself, "Actually, Dr. McIntosh has spoken for AiG many times in the UK on creation, plus his own speaking engagements all over the world. Andy is also a dear personal friend." [[1]]. That sure sounds like he has acted as an agent of AIG. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Add. "Andy is also a dear personal friend" -Sorry, but are you sure such sourcing is fulfilling the WP standards? If McIntosh accepts invitation of some University, does he become member of such University? I noticed you have created havoc - you left Sarfati in AiG but in the article devoted to Him there is mention he has nothing to do with AiG anymore: " Sarfati works for Creation Ministries International (CMI), formerly part of Answers in Genesis (AiG)". That's quite confusing how you leave people in categories - you remove them from ones were they currently belong to and keep them in ones they are not associated with anymore. --Stephfo (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The operative word is "for". When a guest professor speaks at a university, he does not speak FOR that university. Andy McIntosh is listed as a "UK Associate Speaker" on AiG's website [[2]]. That is a lot more than just a causual relationship. AiG's website is a reliable source for the makeup of its own organization. If you can find a source in which McIntosh states that he is no longer associated with AiG, than, by all means, remove him from the category. As it is now, though, he is still associated with AiG, and should be listed in that category. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I was just not sure about it as I expected that he is more associated with Truth in Science and not AiG. This source sounds OK to me. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it goes beyond this -- as far as I can tell (can somebody correct me if I'm wrong) there is no "Fellows" or "Advisors" list or similar at the AiG, making the entire category potentially WP:OR. This is in stark contrast to the Discovery Institute, for which we have a similar category, which publishes explicit lists of them on their website. If nobody can come up with a WP:RS-based inclusion criterion for this category, it needs to be deleted (and its contents merged with Category:Young Earth creationism). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Hrafn: It may be just a matter of renaming the category to "AiG Speakers" based on this page [[3]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
That would seem to be sensible. There're a few in the category who aren't on the list -- but they can either be either otherwise-verified, or removed from it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I would however suggest 'Answers in Genesis staff and speakers' (as there seems no reason to exclude AiG staff), and that the Category's introduction reads "Past and present staff and speakers who have represented Answers in Genesis."HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
CfD discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WIT Press[edit]

WP is exceedingly biased[edit]

Broken links to his University of Leeds page?[edit]

http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/erri/people/mcintosh/mcintosh.shtml is either down or has been deleted. It appears in the article as a reference and under "External links". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluvialis (talkcontribs) 19:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've updated the address. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics[edit]

So what? It's not a reliable source for science. . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Issue has already been discussed on WP:RSN. Please feel free to re-raise it there if you would like to discuss the issue further.WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Views: Critique of mcintosh article on thermodynamics[edit]

"This common creationist claim is based on the failure to understand that complexity can arise from simplicity in a way fully compliant with thermodynamics" to "views" section as proposed by dave souza.

  1. Please read the article where McIntosh states his views (its open access). This comment is not relavent because he is not talking about pattern formation like other creationists. He is simply talking about the rise of free energy able to do work – that this never occurs in open systems just by energy coming across the boundary. If you can find a reference which opposes the argument in his article, please do include it.
  2. As this is a biography of a living person, we do need to be careful how we we word the statement. See policy on biographies of living persons

As this is a biography about somebody's view rather than a scientific article, I think what we have at the moment is sufficient.

WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The work he's talking about is the formation of complexity, and the reference describes just that. A biography isn't an excuse for a POV fork, and we're required by WP:WEIGHT to show how these views are received by the majority scientific view. Alternatively, I've no objection to the paragraph being deleted. Either way, we should not show pseudscientific nonsense out of context. dave souza, talk 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The material in McIntosh’s article are based around fundemental definitions - not analogies (i.e. your reference). A better reference is needed which deals with these, especially as this is a biography of a living person. With regards to WP:WEIGHT - absolutely. However, as indicated in policy for biographies of living persons, the material must be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. I do think the previous wording (without your additional statement) sufficently brings out that this is a disputed matter. Words like "in a discussion", "with Richard Dawkins" in the text sufficently satisfy the WP:WEIGHT criteria for me. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Please could I request that the matter was discussed fully before you add the comments back to the article as has been done WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It's appreciated that McIntosh’s views are based around fundamental definitions, but they have no credence in science and if they're shown in this article they have to be shown as fringe views, with the mainstream context explained. The sources of this section are poor: a religion correspondent's blog, which at best provides opinion pieces about religion, a Dawkins blog item that doesn't mention McIntosh but merely linked to a the religion programme which is no longer available so I've removed that as a dead link, and McIntosh's self-published religious "journal" which isn't a reliable source for anything but his pseudoscientific views. The fact that McIntosh has at one time discussed these views with Dawkins on a radio programme doesn't explain how these views differ from science, and there's neither warrant nor need to show these views out of the required context. . dave souza, talk 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Just out of interest, McIntosh's "paper" claims that "The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around", something directly contradicted by a rather more credible paper from an evangelical Christian perspective. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with all your comments but glad we both agree that the opposing sources could be much better. I have updated the text to reference two relevant journal papers and have rewritten the statement so that the tone is in accordance with WP:BLP
WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Your dois failed, so it's hard to see the reference, and your representation of these publications fails WP:WEIGHT by trying to give them less weight than the fringe views of McIntosh. For the moment I'll leave in the point that he had a discussion with Dawkins, but setting out fringe arguments with inadequate context fails weight. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins article[edit]

We allow critical external links even in BLPs. We've already mentioned Dawkins but not said anything about what Dawkins said. The link just removed[[8] gives readers a chance to see in more detail. We allow critical links in BLPs. Alternatively we can use it as a source and quote some of it. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr McIntosh and thermodynamics[edit]

I will not bother trying to edit the main page, as any edit I make will probably be deleted by trolls.

However, the page currently criticizes McIntosh's view of thermodynamics and evolution, referring to "a well-understood misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and closed versus open systems." Yet, as the article begins, it should be noted that Dr McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds! (This is one of the UK's most prestigious universities). I might opine, therefore, that Dr McIntosh's knowledge of thermodynamics and its correct application is probably at least as good as that of Richard Dawkins, and it most certainly exceeds that of the writer of the sarcastic put-down! You might not agree with him, but at least have the humility to recognize that this man is a great scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pftaylor61 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)