Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Minnesota Screening

{{editprotected}}

I would add this information, but I don't have permission:

PZ Myers, one of the misled interviewees, was expelled from seeing Expelled. He had a ticket and was waiting in line to see a screening. The movie theater and the producers of Expelled threatened him with arrest if he didn't leave the theater's property immediately. However, Richard Dawkins was allowed in. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php. 71.65.218.184 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, to rephrase it (I'd file it under "Scrrenings":

On Marth 20, 2008, PZ Myers went with a group to see one of the first public previews of the movie, but was stopped by the theater management and threatened with arrest if he did not leave the property. Ironically, they made no effort to exclude his family members or his guest, the even more vocal critic of intelligent deisgn Richard Dawkins.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this incident amusing and ironic too, but I don't see how its notable enough, at least yet, to be in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a livejournal. If this becomes a major event in the public perception of the film, it will have it's place. For now, it's just funny, but not yet notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; give it a few hours. It just happened; the news reports will come tomorrow. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is highly notable. PZ Myers was miselad when asked to be interviewed for the documentary Crossroads Expelled and then he's expelled by the producer when he tried to see the movie. How more notable can you get? Angry Christian (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Here's a neutral source I've found on the subject so far - http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html Angry Christian (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call Christianity Today "neutral" -- "unaffiliated with Dawkins or Myers" would be a better description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me on that point :-) Angry Christian (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that expelling Myers while admitting Dawkins is just too hilarious and makes for too good a piece of copy for the mainstream press not to pick it up. I'm fairly sure that a more prominent source will be along shortly. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some have raised the possibility that this was intentional, to try to generate publicity and controversy, for what might be a project headed for disaster. Every indication I have is that the filmmakers are somewhat desperate here. Subsidizing schools to generate audiences? Touring the country trying to organize debates? Even turned away by administrations at Christian Universities as full of nonsense? The release date for the film slipping a few times?

In addition, it is sort of a dull subject, to be honest; a description of some academics who might or might not have been discriminated against. But we have no proof. And then a botched mangled confused mess of panspermia and creationism and intelligent design and theism and atheism and evolution and the Holocaust and Nazis and communism and abortion and so on and so forth, shoved in somehow.

I think that if they can get mainstream press, so much the better for them. So why wouldn't they try to do this? Pretty low risk, with potential high returns. These people are not stupid. And right now, the only thing that matters to them is getting butts in those seats when it comes out. The only thing.--Filll (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is keeping a list of links to all things PZ Gets Expelled By The Producers of Expelled. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php Funny stuff if you have not been following it. Especially funny was the UM student and ID advocate who initially lied through his teeth about what he saw and later back tracked when it was obvious to all he'd been lying all along. Have any reliable sources come up with a theory of why ID seems to attract so many dishonest followers? There has to be a reason for this. Angry Christian (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but the St. Paul Pioneer Press has covered the story so I've summarised the main points of their story in the article. ... dave souza, talk 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me that's confused by the latest "screening" flap as it is described here, including the quotes of Dawkins used here? Original: "Dawkins described the event as 'a gift' and that they 'could not ask for anything better'. Current: "Dawkins described the event as 'a gift'and that '[w]e could not ask for anything better'." Pretend you do not know this story. Like our typical reader. So--What kind of a gift? to who? Who is "they"? Who is "we"? Myers and Dawkins? What sense does it make? None. Until you know that Dawkins is speaking of "we" as in "we who are active opponents to creationism" It would be nice, I think, if this article made some sense out of the quotes, rather than forcing the readers go to the original source to figure out what Dawkins is talking about. Readers need help here. Maybe remind of Dawkins' and Myers' earlier unwitting participation in the film, remind that they have since been very publicly critical of the film. And then when Myers is barred at the door from seeing it, aha! After all, wouldn't it be more informative to explain the event to talk about what Ruloff said?--admitting that the screening was limited exclusively to allied sympathetizers, calculated to stir up some favorable buzz toward the film? It helps to point out, anyway, that Myers wasn't turned away because he wasn't wearing a jacket or forgot his ticket or something, but was deliberately prevented because the filmmaker was deliberately shutting out critics. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, the recent edit clarified who Darwkins was referring to. As you say, the cited source reports Ruloff saying the screening was "in hopes of building favorable word-of-mouth among people likely to be sympathetic to its message.", but he goes on to say "People like Dr. Myers and Dr. Dawkins would not have been invited" when in fact it was an open invitation on the website. Myers took up the invitation and gave his full name, and his booking of seats was on that basis. As I understand, the promoters have now changed the procedure so that each seat has to be booked by name, instead of simply giving a number of guests wanting seats. What Ruloff meant was "we didn't think anyone unsympathetic to the film would take up our invitation, so we're now changing the procedure to expel those who disagree". All of which seemed to me to give undue weight to a fairly small incident, but perhaps we should cover it fully, with more sources added. .. dave souza, talk 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a wealth of great information and links at the blog [1]

including this New York Times article on the event: [2]--Filll (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard about it over at Usenet misc.writing.screenplays.moderated, and the blog says the AP picked it up, and there's references to violations of United States Code. We can certainly reach notability. MMetro (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction to the initial comment: Meyers did not have a ticket. Nor did anyone else. It was an online sign-up, and there were no tickets. However, he did have a properly reserved seat made in his own name. So, people saying he was "gatecrashing" are either misinformed or lying, and people saying "he was not invited" are being disingenuous, since an invitation was not required and most people going at that time were not specifically invited either. -- HiEv 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

At least add the POV dispute tag

As the POV is under dispute, the page should be so tagged. I am unable to add the tag, so I'm requesting the help of a registered member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.122.28 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that justifies a POV tag. Guettarda (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that POV, it is certainly not neutral. So I've added the tag. NCdave (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the POV tag is for an ongoing dispute. Is there a dispute? Relata refero (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just to be clear: that was a feeble joke.) Relata refero (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a much-needed smile, Relata refero.  :-) NCdave (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also see nothing justifying the tag, and User:NCdave seems determined to edit-war to leave the Scarlet Letter up, regardless of any actual merits or actionable requests. So start talking: why the tag? And no, don't try floating the already-rejected claims that ID =/=creationism, since that so far has convinced no one. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, why is the POV tag there? Tell us before we get into an edit war and someone gets sanctioned for WP:TE and WP:DE.--Filll (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and also the POV that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that, whether or not you are completely certain about it, it is certainly not neutral. NCdave (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh how novel. Well I am sure you are aware of WP:NPOV which means we have to present, in large measure, the mainstream view of academia and science in this article. So that is why there is material discussing the falsity of the premise of the film: Because we are required to do so. Do you understand that? Because if you argue against that, that is WP:DE, and there can be consequences including sanctions for tendentious arguments against policy.

And I am sure you are also aware that we have numerous WP:RS that ID=creationism, such as several peer-reviewed journal articles, articles and books by world experts in creationism, and the ruling of a US Federal judge on the matter. So how are these not adequate to present ID=creationism, at least according to the preponderance of evidence? We even have a source or two from a creationist which states that ID=creationism. We even have an interview with the main character in the film, Stein, which indicates that ID=creationism. We even have interviews with the producers of the film where they indicate that ID=creationism. The promotion material for the film suggests ID=creationism. Perhaps you are so upset about this film suggesting ID=creationism, you want to organize a boycott?--Filll (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The premise of the film (at least as suggested by the title) is apparently that religious academicians are too often deprived of academic freedom by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and even the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and intellectually stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. That problem is apparently what this documentary is about.

"Creationism," as the word is usually used, is a shorthand for "Biblical Creationism," which accepts the creation account in the Jewish & Christian scriptures as being to some extent authoritative. Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism. ID is a scientific viewpoint which posits that an ordered universe is not accidental, but rather represents the workmanship of an intelligent "watchmaker." While it is true that creationism (or at least old-earth creationism) is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. It is a subset relation, just as string theory is a type of physics, but physics is not a type of string theory. NCdave (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism - well, that depends on who's speaking. But that's beside the point. ID is one for of creationism. YEC is another. OEC is another. Islamic creationism is yet another. I don't see your point.

ID is a scientific viewpoint - nope. ID proponents claim ID is scientific, but there's no evidence to support that claim. Rather, there is a wealth of evidence that rejects that claim, including a court ruling.

While it is true that creationism ... is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. - the problem seems to be that you have your facts muddled. Either get your facts straight, or provide authoritative sources to support your claim. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has reliable sources describing the movie as an intelligent design movie. We have numerous reliable sources who recognize intelligent design as creationism and religious. Knock off the disruption, NCdave. Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Angry Christian. There are serious undue weight issues especially given a) the makers of the movie talking about it being about ID and being about "religious persecution" and b) Kitzmiller v Dover which ruled that ID was creationism c) the general scientific consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In two years this film will be less well-remembered than Howard the Duck; in the meantime however, AC and Josh bring up valid points. Expelled has linked itself to ID and therefore a discussion of ID is required; sorry if you con't like that NCdave, but that's reality. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources that indicate ID is a type of creationism, and not that creationism is a type of ID, including the ruling of a US federal judge. Also, we do not have to judge the film by its title; we have promotional material, multiple reviews, interviews and articles about it. So...--Filll (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that, as required by WP:V, the points that ID is a form of creationism and not science, that the film promotes the presentation of religious views in classrooms despite this having been ruled contrary to the "Establishment Clause" in a series of court rulings, and that ID in particular was ruled to contravene that constitutional requirement for public school science classrooms, have all been based on third party reliable sources making these points with specific reference to the film. NCdave has given us plenty of original research in his opinions, but no suitable sources. .. dave souza, talk 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, the movie is apparently about academic freedom, not about the technical details of scientists' competing viewpoints. From the movie's promotional material, it does not appear that it delves into a defense of ID. Nor is there any evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Ben Stein or the movie's producers advocate "presenting religious views" to captive audiences in K-12 classrooms.

Obviously, there are challenges to writing about an unreleased film. But perhaps one source of confusion could be that different people sometimes use the same terminology in different ways. What matters in the context of this article are the definitions that the movie's producers & backers use. So here's the Discovery Institute's definition of ID:

Q:What is the theory of intelligent design?

A: 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.[3]

Note well: there's no reference there to creationism, nor even to monotheism. But they go on to explicitly address the question of whether or not ID (as they define it) is a form of creationism:

Q: Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

A: No. ...

and:

Q: Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

A: No. ... (ibid.)

Obviously, the way that the Discovery Institute uses the term "intelligent design," it is not Biblical creationism.

Now, as you know, an organization's own description of its own positions is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. So that's one suitable source.

But what about third parties? What do leading third-party experts say?

Dr. Ronald Numbers is an agnostic, a critic of ID, a past president of the History of Science Society, and the author of the most widely cited history of creationism (which Salon magazine calls "probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism"). But he says that the claim that ID is creationism "doesn't hold a lot of water."

Here's what he told Salon:

Salon: More recently, we've had the intelligent design movement. I know some people just see this as a new version of creationism, stripping away all the talk about God and religion so you can teach it in the schools. Is that true?

Dr. Numbers: There's a little bit of evidence to support that. But I think that both demographically and intellectually, it doesn't hold a lot of water. The intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism. [4]

Do you agree that that is a suitable source, Dave? NCdave (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into this very equivocal statement NCdave. Numbers included a chapter on ID in the latest edition of The Creationists, and even added a subtitle of "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design" to it. He would hardly do this if he believed that ID was not creationism. From the context of the statement, he was clearly more interested in contrasting ID with YEC, and drawing attention to disagreements between these creationist factions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers is in fact very careful to never explicitly state that ID is or isn't Creationism per se. In The Creationists he lists (p380) the accusations of many "opponents of intelligent-design" that ID is Creationism, but only contradicts one claim -- that ID and Creation science are interchangeable terms (as CS requires "a recent special creation and a geologically significant flood" -- a point on which I think he's perfectly correct). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for the source, NCdave, it's very interesting but, as Hrafn says, it's a rather equivocal refinement of the point rather than a refutation. It has the problem that it's not directly related to the topic of the article, and the third party reliable sources cited have explicitly described the topic of the film as promoting intelligent design which is called by them a form of creationism. The source is certainly valid as a clarification of the detail of that point, making it clear that ID is not confined to young earth creationism. Numbers was answering questions about his YEC background, and in that context it's right for him to say "that intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism", though some of the prominent leaders are YEC. Intelligent design is clearly creationism in the general sense of anti-evolution, while accommodating young earth and old earth creationism. So, I've no objection to adding that reference and amending the footnote to show that detailed point, but the well attested point that ID is a form of what many people call creationism stands. In particular, that usage of the term relates to the legal background, which as you'll appreciate is central to the question of whether ID or any other form of anti-evolution can be introduced in science classrooms. Since we're in general agreement, I'll remove the tag and trust we can continue this discussion to agree how to incorporate the point into the article .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. "Creationism" has come to be almost synonymous with young-earth creationism (YEC). ID is clearly an attempt to create a bigger tent by remaining officially agnostic on the age of the earth, flood geology, and the other positive claims of YEC, while still repeating other common YEC arguments against evolution. But even so, many of the leaders of ID are also YEC advocates, and only Behe seems to accept common descent, even though ID *should* be compatible with theistic evolution (though Philip Johnson has argued otherwise, using what I've argued are contradictory claims, in the FAQ on Johnson's _First Things_ article at talkorigins.org). Lippard (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is outrageously biased. I came here because I honestly did not know what the movie was about. Instead of being informed what it was about I was bombarded with criticisms from the very first paragraph to the very end. There are pages in Wikipedia that debate the merits of the ID movement in great detail, this page doesn't need to be another. Not that it matters, but I am not an ID proponent, I am chiming in just because this is a classic example of Wikipedia editors who obviously have an agenda far beyond the mere presentation of factual information. Daniel Freeman (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Daniel Freeman. Here is the pertinent Wikipedia policy (emphasis added):

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

This article should not take a stand about the validity of intelligent design (ID), or about the validity of mentioning it in science classes as an alternative theory (in either private or public schools). Personally, I am 99.999% sure that ID is a load of crap, but this article has no business presenting such personal opinions as the view of Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Daniel Freeman. NCdave (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry proves the point of his movie

{{hat|reason=Paranoid, baseless [[WP:SOAP]]. Yes the Evil Atheist Conspiracy ''is'' out to get you — time to put on your tinfoil hat.}}

Holy cow, if any article were a QED for the movie, this would be it. The movie is not about intelligent design, nor about Darwinism, nor about religion. Watch the trailer. The movie is about the squelching of dissenting viewpoints within the scientific and academic community... which is exactly what is happening in this Wikipedia entry.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial movie, and its Wikipedia article mentions the controversy near the bottom of the page. Michael Moore's films are controversial, and their controversies fork into new articles. Here, Ben Stein's film has not yet opened, and the lead paragraph pretty much declares -- quite unencyclopedically -- that the basis for his film is wrong, and anyone who watches it or believes it is an idiot.

Science is not monolithic. Consensus does not truth make (except on Wikipedia). Scrub this article from all the ready-made refutations and off-topic bloviating, and instead describe the film itself, the way the Gore and Moore entries do. Let Ben Stein's movie compete in the marketplace of ideas, rather than purposely try to torpedo ideas you don't agree with. 216.54.1.206 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no-ones bothering to reply, I won't move this post to the foot of the page in sequence where it belongs, but will merely note that the article reflects the reliable third party sources on which it is based, per WP:V. ... dave souza, talk 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, 216.54.1.206. If anyone doubts that the sorts of things this movie complains of could really happen, they need only look to this article, and its Talk page, for confirmation. NCdave (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this new topic to the end of the Talk page, where it belongs. NCdave (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, the movie appears to be complaining of the fact that most intelligent people think that "ID" is bogus. Well, most people do think it is bogus, so the movie certainly got that right. The problem is just with the implication that somehow there is something wrong with that. Academia sifts through ideas and rejects the useless ones. ID happened to be an useless idea, so it was rejected. Nothing wrong with that. You might as well complain about "No Vril Allowed" or "No Phlogiston Allowed". dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hab}}

I think you are mistaken, Dbachmann, about the point of this documentary. Judging from the promotional material, the complaint is not mainly about the merits of any particular theories, but rather about well-qualified scientists and educators being deprived of their academic freedom, because of their religious views. The movie is about the stifling of non-atheistic viewpoints... just as viewpoints supportive of the documentary are being stifled here on Wikipedia.

Hrafn, please stop deleting other people's comments from the Talk page, and hiding them with {{hab}} templates. How can we hope to achieve WP:consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems?

Also, I again ask of everyone here that you please not denigrate other wikipedians. That means you should not characterize their views or their religions as "useless" or "stupid," or any other derisive term. Dbachmann, that means you should not suggest that those who disagree with you are unintelligent, or that their ideas are useless. Hrafn, it means you should not call them "paranoid" or suggest that they have tinfoil hats, as you did in this comment. Doing so violates an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:no personal attacks, and impedes constructive cooperation. NCdave (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave: it made unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. It is thus legitimately "paranoid" under colloquial meaning on the word. It is also mere WP:SOAPBOXing, that has no legitimate place on this talkpage. Your unarchiving of it is thus disruptive editing. Wikipedia contra to your own repeated, tendentious accusations, does not "stifle" viewpoints, it merely IS NOT A SOAPBOX FOR FRINGE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you said that most people think ID is bogus, but did not give any source to substantiate your claim. Here is a reliable source that contradicts that. It is from a Gallup poll on human origins. Take a look at it. Briefly, the survey states that 14% believe that man developed without God (atheistic evolution), 38% believe that man developed with God guiding (ID), and 43% believe that God created man in present form (Creationism). Data has changed little since 1982. It seems to suggest that ID and Creationism are not fringe beliefs. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JBFrenchhorn for misrepresenting this survey -- "believ[ing] that man developed with God guiding" could just as easily mean that they believe in theistic evolution as that they believe in ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could mean that they believe in theistic evolution and not ID. The poll should have had four positions: Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution, ID, and young earth creationism. That would have made it much easier to understand. As it is, both sides say it says a different thing. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you would need a lot more then 4 positions and a lot more than one question to actually carefully characterize public beliefs. I do not believe that such a survey has ever been conducted, actually. It has been repeatedly shown for example that the vast majority of the US public cannot correctly choose the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list.--Filll (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn, I am not interested in gallup polls, even if you refrain from misrepresenting them. See WP:RS. The percentage of US Americans embracing ID is merely a gauge of the level of general education in US population. What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream. If an appreciable percentage of USians think ID makes sense, it is the US education system that has a problem, not academia. Wikipedia is built to reflect academic mainstream. If you disagree with academic mainstream (e.g., you like ID), you are certainly free to do that (no persecution), but you cannot expect to be given any voice on Wikipedia (which is a privately owned website which only grants you permission to edit content provided you submit to its policies). ID is not just "a belief" like, say, immaculate conception. It is a religious belief that masquerades as science. No academic would be discriminated against because they religiously believe in immaculate conception. They are rightly treated as incompetent if they are unable to distinguish their religious belief from scientific hypothesis: if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud, anything else would mean academia has broken down. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, dab, refrain from disparaging other people's Faith. When you say that, "if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud," you are calling non-atheists irrational, and those non-atheists who are scientists you are calling frauds. Neither accusation is accurate, and making such accusations or disparaging other people's faith is never acceptable on Wikipedia. NCdave (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream... Therein lies the problem. This means, any article about a movie, book, or position that challenges the academic mainstream as being dogmatic doesn't stand a chance of a fair shake on Wikipedia when measured against the onslaught of those who wish to defend the dogma.Madjack59 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Woof! .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, that is reality. This Wiki is aimed towards academic standard and has the goal of building an encyclopedia. There are many other wikis which have different goals. I would be pleased to direct you to another one which might suit your tastes better.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course the irony of this reply in light of this particular section is that you're essentially proving the whole point here. The point of the movie is that the academic community suppresses opinions that are contrary to the mainstream academic community - to the point of persecution. You are arguing that Wikipedia isn't the place for anything contrary to the academic community, and those that are trying to say others are essentially disruptive editors. This of course makes them open to the various forms of Wikipedia moderation, which is essentially a form of censorship (perhaps appropriate in some cases). However, regardless of whether the censorship is appropriate or not, it does uphold the point that those who advocate for ID are essentially censored, to the point where some have posted block warnings on user pages...Rich0 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Rich0. NCdave (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Academic community, and wikipedia too, has a dreadful bias against unsubstantiated, illogical hyperbole, and "suppresses", suppresses I tell you, claims for no other reason than that they have no factual basis. Do you know how difficult it is to get the WP:TRUTH that the moon is made of green cheese into either a scientific journal or wikipedia? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is of course right, and WP:V trumps "Truth". As a parallel to this film, the cheese theory[5] is given full backing in the movie A Grand Day Out. .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of key reminders

According to the splash page of the Crossroads Expelled website:

Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is every generation has its Rebel...

So I want to point out the producers are framing this as an idea being expelled from the classroom and not people. This article by "the producers" from the same web site sheds some light on what idea they're talking about http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=1

Are Atheists Hijacking Academic Freedom? Why some might consider Ben Stein’s new movie to be political dynamite. The theory of intelligent design (ID), holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Political dynamite.

There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory. But there is more to this than meets the eye.

They don’t like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don’t like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D. But they simultaneously want you to believe that their belief in atheism has nothing to do with their persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer. Merely coincidence. That is because they have “defined” science in such a way as to prevent the scientific exploration of intelligent design theory. They say that any evidence that suggests intelligent design in nature isn’t really science. In this manner they are able to “logically” assert that only their theories of life (which just happen to be exclusively atheistic theories) are “real” science, while intelligent design theory is conveniently dismissed as religious “creationism.”

All of this translates into a very nasty piece of business as far as academic freedom goes.

The upcoming film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein articulates why the argument made in the film is irrefutable – meaning that those who oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom are simply wrong to oppose it.

But are they also intellectually disingenuous, opponents of academic freedom and proponents of atheism, hijacking “science?” After seeing the film “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed,” we’d appreciate your telling us the answer to that question.

The whole point of man’s thirst for knowledge, scientific and otherwise, is to answer the question “Who are we?” “Where did we come from?” “Why are we here?” and “Where are we headed?” To deny this is to deny the reality of human existence since the beginning. And to simply “declare” that the subject of “science” can somehow side step these questions is either wrong or intellectually disingenuous.

The official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” This definition is disingenuous – it all but “defines” science as the search for “proof” of …exclusively atheistic theories.

It is the position of the producers of EXPELLED that no government institution or public employee should promote either belief in atheism OR belief in an intelligent designer – one to the exclusion of the other – as official, government policy. Both are presuppositions, both are beliefs and both are valid as scientific bases for scientific exploration. And this is particularly true with respect to the way “science” is officially defined, and especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions. It is simply a tautology to “declare” that science is strictly the study of the natural, and to then simultaneously decree that attempts to explore the universe in terms of the presupposition of intelligent design are “off the table,” and “not science.” To do so is to define “science” in such a way as to officially “favor” explanations that place atheistic presuppositions above those with the presupposition of design at their root. This is not the proper role of the government. Not in America.

Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today. To even question aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution is being used as prima facie evidence that one is “unintelligent,” and/or unqualified.

To deny this is disingenuous.

Belief in atheism, agnosticism and belief in a designer are real beliefs – let’s not pretend that they don’t exist, can be side stepped or pretend that it is fair, constitutional or intellectually rigorous to favor one such worldview over another... especially in the realm of science. To oppose such academic freedom – especially at the taxpayer’s expense - is simply wrong. If you agree, look here.

~The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”

Clearly this movie is very much about promoting intelligent design in the classroom and in science. Angry Christian (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. The message that "Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom." and argument that "the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” ... might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." , together with the claim that people are wrong to "oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom", assertion that the official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” and the reference to the way “science” is officially defined "especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions." all run right up against the "Establishment Clause" and Kitzmiller. My feeling is that a brief statement about the implications of this reference could be added to the Claims presented in the film section. It also ties in with the very brief statement in the AP news story[6][7] that "The movie argues that schools should teach creationism as an alternative to evolution". ... dave souza, talk 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That excerpt indicates that the topic of the film is academic freedom:

"There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory."

"...persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer."

"Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today."

The film's complaint isn't that those who disagree with ID are wrong, it is that they are persecuting the scientists who disagree with them. NCdave (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film's website quite clearly makes the complaint that ID is excluded from science classrooms (making evaluation of the legitimacy, on scientific and constitutional grounds, of that exclusion a legitimate topic for this article). As to the accusations of "persecution", they are unsubstantiated, and so I refer you to the adjective I employed above to characterise unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main point of the film is the persecution of scientists and educators who think there is evidence of a designer's workmanship in the universe. You say that the complaint of persecution is "unsubstantiated," but since the thrust of the film is substantiating that complaint, what you are really saying is simply, "the film is all wrong."

That is essentially what the article currently says. It is a perfect reflection of your POV. However, it is supposed to be balanced. NCdave (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you had better settle down a bit. When I last checked on the "balance" in the article a few weeks ago (before I had added several more paragraphs of material from interviews with producers etc discussing the film's POV), the article was 88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal (not counting footnotes). Now, given the rules of WP:NPOV, it could easily be balanced at 95% anti-film, however, we are more generous than that. I have no reason to believe that the article does not still include mainly material discussing the film's agenda and POV, with a small amount of material rebutting it. Some of it discusses controversy about the film, much of which was created by the filmmakers themselves, by their cackhanded handling of the creation and promotion of this film. Now if you want some promotional puff piece, you should look to Conservapedia. We do not do that kind of article here, nor are we allowed to, by our rules. Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said Conservapedia? Their article about Expelled is a fascinating read. The notes and talk page as well. Every editor here would do well to read it. Angry Christian (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

um, why? It's Conservapedia. I could tell they like it without looking. And come on, "persecution" is simply ridiculous. "Not given fair hearing" would sound more reasonable, although it is difficult to imagine what a "fair hearing" would be in this case. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is interesting, but it is still lousy. They decided against discussing any controversy or critical reviews. It is very short and has no content. I think for an encyclopedia article, it should have substantial content, on all sides. It should be valuable for someone 10 or 50 years from now who wants to do research on this event and this movement and this period. The Conservapedia article serves none of those purposes. It is a one-sided embarassment.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is wholesale trash. I linked to it to illustrate what a POV pushing article looks like. Well and for humor reasons, nothing wrong with a little brevity here from time to time :-) Angry Christian (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That "wholesale trash" is at least more informative and less biased than this Wikipedia article. NCdave (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very negative about the film. Yet Filll says that, by his count, the article is "88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal." How did you arrive at that, Filll? 88%+12%=100%. Did you find nothing in the article that was actually neutral? Or do you equate neutrality with "pro-film?"

For instance, the current lead sentence is, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature." Other than the negative bias introduced by use of the word "claim," that sentence seems purely descriptive to me, neither pro- nor anti-film. I would count that 29-word sentence as a 28-word neutrally descriptive sentence, plus one word carrying a negative (i.e., anti-film) connotation. How do you count it? NCdave (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New review

Lying for Jesus? - Richard Dawkins Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add the Dawkins review and Myer's daughter's review, even though they are WP:SPS since they are notable figures and therefore these are WP:RS for their views which should be included.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkin's comments seem relevant. It isn't completely obvious to me why PZ's daughter's review should matter much. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

if you do, please include Dawkin's remarks about an 'uniformed goon', a 'gauleiter', and his remarks about Stein's 'rotten acting' in Dachau. Stein is Jewish and maybe had a relative murdered by Nazis. Northfox (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read them?--Filll (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not when I wrote that comment. I'm reading them now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Or trying to, link doesn't seem to be working. Whats the correct link? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me quite a few tries before I read Dawkin's review, which is pretty good. I had no trouble with Myer's daughter's review.--Filll (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what are the links you are using? The one Guettarda gave above doesnt seem to work. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The daughter is named Skatje Myers I gather: [8]--Filll (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already read PZ's daughter's blog and I'm inclined to agree that I don't see any obvious reason to include her commentary. She is not notable in her own right and her only claim would seem to be her relation to PZ and she attended the screening. Would we add the blog comments from one of the Crossroads Expelled producer's kids? I would hope not. I did find her comments well worth reading but I don't think her thoughts belong in the article. We'd open a very ugly can of worms if we did. Angry Christian (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Dawkins link I used. It was very hard to get it to work. I had to try over and over: [9]--Filll (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Front page of digg. Like so many other things that receive that distinction, the website collapsed under the strain. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Relata refero (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inside Higher Ed has an article on the event, and has a couple more quotes from Mathis. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John Lynch notes that all future showing appear to have been pulled. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My reading of that is that all future free private showings have been hidden, and invitations will now go out by a secure method. Tied to pigeons or something. Of course since they're showing an extremely rough bodged version without its proper soundtrack only a few weeks from release, expect them to cancel release with the complaint that "Big Science ate my homework". ...... dave souza, talk 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another new review, this one is from New Scientist Are ID Proponents Being Silenced This one includes audience members telling people questioning things in the movie to "shut up" and a claim that many of the people posing "friendlier" questions to the producers were working the movie registration tables prior to the screening. Fascinating Angry Christian (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is impressed and is "literally shocked" by the "condescension and the arrogance" of the professors interviewed. Literally, huh? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My favorite quote "they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began." Well of course they will readily admit it, that is a fact. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with life's origins. Note that evolution does not even attempt to explain the universe either. Yet another literal shocker! What amazes me is how ignorant of evolution (and science in general) most evolution critics are. Ben Stein is a perfect example. He's pissed because evolution doesn't explain the universe or how life started. Well duh. Angry Christian (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hat|reason=[[WP:FORUM]]}}
If evolution does not explain the origin of life, then what does it explain? Kookywolf (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See biology....... dave souza, talk 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, a side benefit for people who are not well versed in this material who are visiting this page, is that they will actually learn a bit about what evolution is. Kookywolf, remember a book called "On the Origin of Species It was Darwin's book that described evolution. And guess what evolution describes? How we get different species! Amazing, isnt it?--Filll (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If evolution is how we get different species, then obviously evolution must be how we got the first living creature on earth, which would then produce varieties of more complex creatures. So my rational conclusion is that evolution must be how life originated. If it is not, please educate me - how did life originate? Kookywolf (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Um there is some confusion here. No it is not "obvious" that evolution is how we got the first living creature on earth. And evolution has no internal mechanism that leads to necessarily more complicated organisms (another common fallacy). No one knows how life originated, although there are dozens of theories. But the origin of life (or abiogenesis) is not part of evolution. Discussing it at length is outside the purview of this page, however.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

please educate me - no, please don't. This isn't the place to correct an editor's general misconceptions. Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Basic, Darwinistic, Natural Selection evolution does not describe how life began, it just attempts to explain a way that species change. Modern evolutionists on the other hand, have used explanations like Primordial Soup to describe how life began. So really, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Whether or not evolution tries to explain the origins of life depends on whether you're talking about basic darwinistic evolution, or talking about modern attempts to explain the origin as well as diversification of life. Saksjn (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem with abiogenesis is this, long ago the scientific community said that all life must come from life. Theories like primordial soup go against that. A reverse in theory has taken place, and a long time accepted theory has been discarded. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hab}}

A second problem is lack of falsifiability. No one has managed to make predictions or propose experiments which would support or falsify the hypothesized abiotic origin of life. In other words, the scientific method apparently cannot be applied, because the hypothesis is untestable. Acceptance of the abiotic origin of life is, thus, for all intents and purposes, simply a matter of Faith. NCdave (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is patently false NCdave, but that is not the point of this talk page, and further rants in this direction should be summarily userfied or archived. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, my statement is falsifiable by counterexample. So if you think my statement is in error, please prove your point by identifying a falsifiable prediction arising from the hypothesized abiotic origin of life, or a proposed or actual experiment to test such a prediction. Please don't just deny it without evidence, and insult me by calling what I wrote a "rant." NCdave (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the Miller-Urey experiment? Had it been shown that the building blocks of life could not be created by natural processes in the situations on the ancient earth, then there would be serious problems for the hypothesis, at least as far as non-panspermic theories are concerned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The synthetic synthesis of a couple of small amino acids is a far, far cry from creating life from non-life, as critics often note. NCdave (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of movie

Dawkins and several others have speculated that maybe the movie would be withdrawn, given its current rough state and the recent embarassment of expelling Myers. I think this is just wishful thinking. Pondering the situation, I have to say I disagree, for the following reasons:

• Dawkins, Skatje Myers, Moore and all those on the right that have viewed the movie report that the audience is tickled pink and guffaws and snickers throughout the movie. Dawkins did not like it, but that is what he reported.
• Dawkins gave up asking questions at the end of the movie because the audience response was so hostile.
• Many times, different cuts of the movie are shown to see what audience response is, and final decisions are made on this basis
• The Myers affair has boosted the visibility of the movie incredibly. Now even many "evolutionists" and atheists etc will want to see the movie to see what the fuss is about
• Even if the movie release is delayed again, this is quite common in the movie business
• Most of the target audience is going to buy Mathis' explanation, frankly. Look what else they have already bought. --Filll (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Filll. Furthermore I think this is a purely preaching to the choir film so there's no doubt in my mind it will be released and with great fanfare. Angry Christian (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends on what you expect from the movie:

• Will it energise 'the base' of conservative evangelicals and get them out to vote in school board elections to support "poor persecuted Christians"? Most probably. But then, they would have needed very little convincing anyway. Spending the $3.5m budget on Icons of Evolution DVDs would probably have been a more effective way of achieving this. But I see little point in them withdrawing it, having already spent the money.
• Will it convince many moderate Christians? Most probably not, if the reported heavy-handedness of the propaganda tactics are in the least bit accurate, and particularly if the negative buzz it is generating with the mainstream media continues to increase.

I don't think this movie will change many people's positions, merely harden them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The big question for the filmmakers is, will they make their money back and make a profit? And I think that the signs are that they will. And the Myers event makes it more likely I suspect, not less likely (particularly as I monitor the traffic to this article page on the internet).--Filll (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? The film was almost-certainly underwritten by big-pocketed ID supporters, and the pay-schools-to-make-their-pupils-go scheme indicates that they have little interest in turning a profit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how widespread this speculation is. I think it is something we should watch and maybe see if eventually we cover it in the article.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film makers wanted the film to become controversial. If it did, people would see it just to see what the whole big deal was. The more people that see it... the more money the film makes and the more people are exposed to it's opinions. Am I correct in saying that we are all probably going to see it the first day it comes out? Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I probably won't. I appreciate good films, and I am not particularly convinced this would be classified as a "good film". But I have been pretty bored with most films like this, including Michael Moore's. They alternately bore me and anger me with their POV pushing and agendas.--Filll (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Without question I will not see it in a theatre and instead will wait and borrow a DVD or get one from a library. I do not financially reward one sided propaganda movies like this or others in a similar vein. Loan me your copy of a Michael Moore or Ben Stein movie and I'll watch it but I'm not going to financially reward propaganda. Opening weekend is a good prediction of how well a movie will do so the producers are putting alot of emphasis on the opening. I suspect this movie will go to DVD very quickly. Angry Christian (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We can hope.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hello y'all, it's STILL not a general discussion forum for the subject of the article, m'kay? Anyone remember the basic guiding rules of Wikipedia? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Dolewhite (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read about its potential relevance above. And people are allowed to have a couple of offtopic asides, are they not?--Filll (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that in order to effectively discuss the article we all should see the movie when it comes out. If only a few of us see it, we have an "advantage" in discussion over those that haven't. (the term advantage is used sarcastically) Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What? You radical, you! It is the most sacred principle of Wikipedia that whether of not you know something about a topic has nothing to do with your qualifications to write an encyclopedia article about it!  ;-) NCdave (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's why creationists continue to edit science articles. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

what the producers left out

Interesting perspective at PT Allen MacNeill: Expelled from Expelled Seems Cornell routinely invites ID proponents to lecture there and he was interviwed for the film so they knew this yet this fact was left out. He also points out how many openly religious biologists such as Ken Miller (who is a Christian) were not included. Makes you scratch your head and wonder. In fact Cornell is doing exactly what the IDists are requesting - they give ID a platform to speak from at a major university and no one gets persectuted. Why did the producers of Crossroads Expelled keep this fact out of the movie? I think the Cornell snub is noteworthy. Angry Christian (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really surprising. Staying on-message is clearly more important than accuracy for them -- and such examples work against the message of Science-Departments-as-Orwellian-Atheist-indoctrination-camps. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the movie criticize Cornell? If not, then Cornell's tolerance of ID viewpoints is irrelevant. Surely the movie did not say that no colleges tolerate belief in intelligent design... did it? NCdave (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice the Inside Higher Education article mentions a professor at a Christian college who published a book stating that you could reconcile evolution and a belief in God. After that, he was forbidden from teaching biology classes.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

for the record, in Richard_G._Colling's wikiarticle it is reported that he does not teach the general biology classes anymore. Seems he still teaches biology.Northfox (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This also dovetails nicely with my favorite example, Christine Comer.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - the Richard Colling case had a lot of coverage - I'm surprised that we don't have an article on him. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grasshopper, try Richard G. Colling Correct? Angry Christian (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, given that we have a couple of articles that discuss cases which are the "opposite" of those presented in the movie, maybe we could have a section on them without being accused of engaging in WP:OR? The Cornell situation, Colling, and possibly Comer (I don't know of a source for that one yet that links in this movie, or maybe I do, I just have to dig it back up). Are there others? Since we are a major stop on the internet (3rd after the official film websites), and obviously visited now by thousands per day, if we highlighted this, it might result in some more balanced journalism, for example. Nothing like cataloguing this information and making it easily available to the great unwashed.--Filll (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation where a scientist was forbiden from teaching biology shouldn't have happened. My physics/earth-space teacher openly professes to be a theistic evolutionist... at a Christian school... and he still teaches. Although I don't agree with the decision of the college, I can see why they might do something like that. The school has a Christian base and wants to keep everything in the college inside the "Christian" box. What that box is depends on who you ask. This is the same as a Muslim school condeming a teacher for saying Christianity and Islam can co-exist. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But the fact that such cases exist, show that the situation is far more complicated and not as one-sided as those who produced this movie would have you believe.--Filll (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A commenter on The Panda's Thumb (blog) compiled a useful list:

I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.

Up to 9 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.[10]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

what does 'successful death treat' mean? Was Gwen Pearson murdered? A quick google did not give any hit. Or was he successfully fired? Northfox (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More candidates: More irony from the ID creationist crowd details Terry M. Gray & Howard Van Till's heresy trials and Van Till's ongoing inquisition and harassment thereafter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we put a sentence in this article, with a link to a list article, listing some of these cases? What should we do?--Filll (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To get them into this article, we'd need WP:RSs linking them to Expelled, which we don't seem to have to date. Assuming that even some of these examples have WP:RSs simply on the persecution angle (which is almost certainly true), we should be able to find enough to meet WP:NOTE on a 'Creationist persecution of theistic evolutionists' article, which could legitimately be see-also-ed from this one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative action and NCdave

I personally am fed up with NCdave's ongoing campaign to disrupt the article. He continues to slap the POV tag after he has been told over and over to knock it off. His only complaint seems to be he personally does not like the article. I think administratiove action is warranted. Angry Christian (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What a joke! The article IS POV, deny it all you want. From the needless quotes around "persecuted" (which is clearly there to demean the claim, since the sentence already clearly states that it is a claim, not a fact) to the needless "background" that overwhelms any material actually relating to the subject of the page, to the blatant disregard for Wiki standards shown by the coffee clatch of culture warriors discussing the subject of the film rather than the film itself on the edit page, this whole thing is a joke. The page has been hijacked by people who are actively trying to prove Conservapedia correct by setting itself up as the exact opposite, and loaded with the same degree of intellectual dishonesty all the while.

The page is a POV waste of space. I came here to read about THE FILM, not the debate that stands behind the film, and this page is absolutely useless for anyone actually trying to learn about the film. The writers have decided that if you should dare come here, you run too much of a risk of falling victim to the foul plans of the DI, and they need to put a great bulwark in place to make sure you don't make it all the way to the article without having been thoroughly schooled in the vast right-wing conspiracy to turn the nation into a theocracy. Oh noes!

Yes, it's POV as all get-out. I don't bother complaining about that, though because that's the least of the article's problems. It's totally illegible, meaningless, and a complete tangent from the start. With such a colossal waste of time, who really cares if it's POV anymore? Dolewhite (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dolewhite wrote, "the same degree of intellectual dishonesty". That's a pretty serious charge, you might want to consider either substantiating it, with specific examples and support, or backing off from it. Meanwhile, I'm unclear on why you should be upset to find discussion of a controversy on the page about a film that seeks to initiate discussion of a controversy. It's what the film is about, so naturally the WP page on it should touch upon the film's subject and aims. --Ichneumon (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well thanks for your comments. Have a nice day! --Filll (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, on what grounds does tagging an article so highly disputed as this as NPOV warrant such action? I'm really, really starting to buy into the persecution theory of the film. You guys are incredible. Dolewhite (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no valid reason for tagging it has been presented. If someone wanted to claim the English sucked in it, that I would agree with however (do we have a tag for bad English? I think we probably do). But while it is being changed so often and under attack, it is a bit difficult to clean up the language in it I am afraid.--Filll (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, pretty much every review discusses the debate behind the fgilm's premises. Wikipedia summarises reliable sources to create its articles, hence the debate, which appears in pretty much evry review, has to be included. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or is this a movie review? Dolewhite (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't block NCdave. It seems that the POV issue is still under dispute, as there appear to be multiple users who believe that. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

People who believe our article should be a carbon copy of the Conservapedia article on the film are always going to claim we have POV issues. We have explained repeatedly why we have to write our article the way it is written; because of our rules. Now you can either accept that and abide by our rules, or leave, or argue tendentiously and disruptively. And if you argue tendentiously and disruptively, it is likely that eventually you will receive some sort of administrative sanction.

The same is true at Conservapedia. I guarantee you that if I did not "toe the party line" at Conservapedia, they would block me incredibly quickly. So? What is your point?--Filll (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Call off your dogs, bro. I'm not claiming it *should* be a carbon copy of the Conservapedia article. I'm reflecting the view that Ice T once espoused: you can believe with some of what I say or most of what I say, but if you believe all of what I say or none of what I say, then only one of us is doing the thinking. This article in it's current form seems to be the exact antithesis of the Conservapedia article. It's not about the film, it's about what a completely stupid theory ID is and how ID is a mental poison that is trying to burn the Constitution and piss on its ashes. This article is becoming defined by the proponents of ID, as the opponents of ID work as hard as they can to ensure that the exact opposite viewpoint is solely expressed.

It looks to me like this whole thing is a clear violation of pillars 1, 2, and 4. It violates #1 by serving as a soapbox and collecting irrelevant, non-encyclopedic concatenations of factoids and opinions. It violates #2 by refusing to remain neutral and refusing to balance biased claims with counter-claims. And it violates #4 by turning into a completely petty collection of disputes. Here you are, trying to threaten me with administrative action when I've done absolutely nothing whatsoever to earn any such scorn. Comment ironique, non? Dolewhite (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that it seems to be a blatant lie that you suggest it's "because of our rules" that this is turning into a war. Look above. When I first asked the question, I got a bunch of claims that it was the other side that started it, or it was preemption because the other side would nit pick the matter. It has nothing to do with rules, and you've all admitted that point above. It has to do with blocking the dreaded "other side." You ignored professor marginalia's apt criticisms entirely. Dolewhite (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, are you suggesting that I should be blocked for not "toeing the party line" here at Wikipedia? NCdave (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, on my user Talk page you asserted that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify."

But we most certainly are in dispute here. You are actively involved with editing this article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example, you have reinserted material that I explicitly objected to, regarding the Establishment Clause. Perhaps you were unaware of my objection to that material, since Hrafn deleted the discussion from the Talk page, but you can read it in the diff.

Additionally, you reverted edits which were in agreement with my stated view that ID is not a form of creationism.

Additionally, you've made no secret of your disdain for the film, even to the point of expressing glee that it is playing in few theaters, and reverting other edits which were intended to make the article less unbalanced, and defending incivility on the Talk page.

You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so please recuse yourself.

Also, please do me the courtesy of <s>striking</s> your "warning" on my Talk page, and noting that it was a mistake, since it is embarrassing to have that sort of thing on my Talk page.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I do my best to apply the Golden Rule to my Wikipedia editing, but that doesn't mean that I never slip up, and I'd like to know about it when I do. NCdave (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot of tough talk and bluster and ranting, with very little content folks. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your stances before this gets ugly? I will not even bother to refute all the nonsense spewed here. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raul654. Angry Christian (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave: your objections the Establishment Clause language was proven to be without merit (by the controlling SCOTUS precedent on the issue, no less -- which employed almost identical language), yet you continued to try to turn this talkpage into a WP:SOAPBOX for your WP:FRINGE views on the subject. You have offered no credible objections to this article's neutrality, nor any that that haven't been comprehensively rebutted. You therefore have no legitimate basis for a POV-template. You are the very model of a disruptive editor. I am frankly sick of your futile and pointless disruption. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't begin to express how much I agree. Your objections to the inclusion of Kitmiller was baseless and disruptive. Your constant POV tagging is baseless and disruptive and I'm still astonished you claim to know anything about ID while admitting you have no idea who Michael Behe is. Your arguing here on the talk page squelches those who are trying to make improvements to the article but no one can hear them over the nonsense you bring to the table. What exactly have you contributed to the article other than baseless claims on the talk page? Angry Christian (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Same story, different town. NCdave is engaging in precisely identical behavior on global warming-related articles. As an example, he has disputed the use of a term by the joint science academies of the major industrialized nations because it doesn't fit his interpretation of the dictionary definition of the word. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not do a good job of dealing with editors who have learned to play the WP:CIVIL game while engaging in tendentious editing that exhausts the patience of others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is an enormous soapbox. The whole intro focuses primarily on how incorrect ID and the DI are and very, very little on the actual FILM ITSELF. Can anyone point to where NCDave is trying to force a POV into the matter? And that's a serious question--this page has spun out of control, and I've read most of it, but not all of it. It seems to me that NCDave is trying to remove POV in good faith. However, a vocal group has decided that the best way to win the war against ID is to force the presumption that the fight is already over, and deny any possibility that open-mindedness should be considered neutral.

Look at the length of this page. Has anyone addressed the concerns raised by Professor Marginalia? Are we now smearing the good name of that man too by the presumption that he's a shill for the religious right? His comments are valid, and aren't in any way about trying to make this article carry a POV. Is there any chance remaining that people aiming for a fair discussion of the FILM will manage to stand forward and turn this into an encyclopedic article, rather than a long and tortuous rant against ID and the DI? Dolewhite (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my name has been raised in this, let me chime in here. To be fair, it's important to re-iterate that the ball was put back in my court on these challenges (rightly so). I was asked to come back with specifics so others can better understand my concerns, and that was a fitting response to my challenges. If I could be quicker about it, my response would be done already. But as I cautioned earlier, I'm struggling to wrap my arms around this article because it is so all-over-the-place. I'm not focused only on NPOV-really, I'm focusing on sourcing now, because of overall intelligibility chiefly, but also OR and NPOV. NPOV follows good sourcing--editors have to determine weight to issues by objective review of the best sources.

I've seen too much time wasted at WP unnecessarily to let this opportunity for a PSA go by. Tags don't fix problems. Tags may draw attention to problems. However, if one finds they're edit warring to keep a tag, the attention quickly shifts from problems in articles to problems with an editor's behavior. These conflicts between editors can be the fault of POV pushers. They can also be the result of editors who can not understand each other. Editors who are here to push a POV need to find another website. But editors who are trying to understand how to communicate the subject in the most honest and direct way to readers need to listen as much as they need to talk. I'm just sayin'.....I have problems with the article. It's my job now to explain them better. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave appears to be attempting to defend Wikipedia from subversives who want to turn it into a propaganda vehicle. I heartily endorse his efforts. Until this article becomes something other than a long-winded rant against the viewpoints expressed by the movie, it should be tagged for NPOV. Aminorex (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed

The following needs to be changed:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The paired commas makes the bit about the Kitzmiller trial a parenthetical statement, and hence it would appear that the film discusses the trial as a promotion of religion.

Furthermore, there's a problem with saying that it violates the constitution. Judicial rulings change from time to time. The 14th amendment didn't change between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. What changed were the rulings and their resultant precedent. My rewrite would be to the following:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If that's kosher with all y'all, I'd like to make that change. Dolewhite (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing grammar is unclear, however I do not support your proposed change. Better wording would be: "The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial which forbids, as promotion of religion by the government and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The *trial* doesn't forbid anything. The ruling does. That sentence is a run-on nightmare. If you don't understand that the first amendment contains the establishment clause, then click on the link. That's way too much information for a single sentence. Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the original language is tortuous at best. I have a couple minor issues with Dolewhite's suggested change, while finding Hrafn's still rather hard to follow for the average reader. I like Dolewhite's version better, but I'd drop "wherein a federal judge" and simply have it read, "..., which ruled the...". And there ought to be some quick mention of *why* the teaching of Intelligent Design was considered afoul of the First Amendment, something along the lines of, "...a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it promoted a religious position." Also, this isn't the place to get into it, but the Kitzmiller decision didn't actually prohibit "the teaching of intelligent design" per se, it only prohibited teaching of ID performed similar to the manner attempted in Dover. It would still be allowable to "teach ID" in a purely secular manner, or as a topic in a religious study class, just not (as was attempted in Dover and almost everywhere else people have attempted to introduce "ID" to a curriculum) as a vehicle by which to make students more receptive to creationist views. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the *case* didn't "rule" anything. The judge did. A judge is a person, and a person can do things. The abstract 'trial' is not an actor. As for the why, I'd suggest I throw in "the establishment clause" of the first amendment. So how about:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Better? Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Readers are well aware that judges are responsible for case rulings. The extra verbiage adds nothing, and a quick Google turns up tens of thousands of examples of language along the lines of, "the decision ruled that..." As a compromise, how about, "...the consequences of Kitzmiller blah, which prohibits the teaching of..." Even after the judge has gone home, the case itself now prohibits such teaching. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources such as Larson use terms like "essentially" to characterize similar ambiguities in earlier anti-evolution cases. Didn't Kitzmiller explicitly only "forbid" the Dover version of ID presented at trial? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly, yes, but by implication it (and all other court decisions) have the effect of also affecting other situations which would be "essentially" similar enough to run afoul of the same criteria used to nix the one explicitly struck down. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording needs changing. However, it is inaccurate to say that "Kitzmiller... prohibits the teaching of," because the case is valid precedent only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and also because even in the Middle District of Pennsylvania what it prohibited was not the teaching of ID, but the requirement to teach it. It is not a gag order on science teachers.

What's more, "Establishment Clause" is the wrong term. The "Establishment Clause," itself, says nothing at all about schools, it only restricts "Congress." In fact, when it was adopted most States had "establishments of religion" (official State-supported churches). Ironically, Congress still has daily prayers, which are not deemed to violate the Establishment clause, but in the schools prayers are prohibited, ostensibly by the Establishment Clause. In truth, it was not the Establishment Clause which prohibited school prayer and the support of religion in public K-12 schools, it was an activist SCOTUS, ruling supposedly on the basis of the 14th and 1st Amendments in combination, after the authors and ratifiers of both those Amendments were all safely in their graves (along with most of their grandchildren), with an interpretation of that Amendment that would have astounded those authors. So, rather than saying "Establishment Clause," we should simply refer to (un)constitutionality, which gets the job done without wading into this whole ugly can of worms.

I tried to fix this, but was immediately reverted, and Hrafn then also deleted the discussion of a possible compromise wording from the Talk page (contravening WP:Talk).

The compromise wording we were narrowing in on was something along the lines of, "according to current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, promotion of religion in American public schools is unconstitutional." So what do you folks think about a wording like this:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

The three key points are:

• We need to just refer to (un)constitutionality, since the basis for that alleged unconstitutionality is much more complex than just "the establishment clause" or "the 14th amendment," and a discussion of 14th Amendment Incorporation is way, way beyond the scope of this article.
• Kitzmiller did not prohibit teaching ID, it prohibited a requirement to teach it. The difference is important.
• The Kitzmiller case is not a generally binding precedent. It applies only to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

So, what do you folks think of that wording? NCdave (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from NCdave. What we "need" is for you to stop repeating this baseless, discredited line about the Establishment Clause. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find the Incorporation (Bill of Rights) article informative, Hrafn. NCdave (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller verdict is regarded as a "broad ruling", usable as a legal precedent for all similar cases throughout America (in the sense that any attempt to introduce ID in a similar fashion elsewhere will be swiftly dismissed because it would be a rehash of Kitzmiller). Therefore any claim that the precedent is technically limited to just that district is essentially moot: legally, ID is dead. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I'd like to second what Hrafn and Robert Stevens have said. They are correct, and your attempts at nit-picking do not add anything to the discussion, much less the WP articles. Like it or not, the Kitzmiller decision does indeed have the effect of nixing the teaching of "ID" as a surrogate for creationism in all public schools. This remains the case until/if someone mounts a successful challenge to it somewhere. Until then, however, you haven't a leg to stand on. Deal with it. You also need to deal with the fact that your personal interpretation of the Establishment clause and its judicial/legislative implications is not the one that holds sway in the courts. And your irrelevant side issues (such as the fact that Congress has prayers) does nothing to change that. Maybe you can't figure out why, but if anything this is only more reason for you to sit back and leave the subject to those who do actually understand the subject well enough to not keep tilting at windmills. In short, your repeated attempts to force your personal viewpoint into articles instead of describing the world as it actually exists are more disruptive and irritating than useful. --Ichneumon (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, ID can be taught in Dover, just not portrayed as science in science class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Oops Angry Christian (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the term "broad" as in "broad ruling" is descriptive of what the ruling says, and has nothing to do with where the ruling is binding. Appellate-level courts can create binding precedents within their jurisdictions, but Judge Jones is not an appellate judge. The decision is binding only in the particular case, though it is likely to be respected as non-binding precedent within rest of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Consider the opinion of Barbara Forrest, who was an expert witness for the ACLU in the case, and who is on the board of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. She speculated that the reason Discovery Institute did not participate in the case was their concern that the Dover policy was on shaky legal grounds. She wrote, "The problem, however, was that DI did not want this case because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC, had explicitly crafted its policy to promote “intelligent design.”"

Ichneumon, welcome to the discussion. I plead guilty to nit-picking. In fact, if you click on my name you will see that the one thing I say about myself is that I am a "sticker stickler" for truth and accuracy. Even if an inaccuracy is a "nit," I still want it fixed. Don't you?

Discovery Institute's position is (and always has been) opposed to requirements like Dover's, which require teaching ID. Here's is what they say:

Discovery Institute's science education policy has been consistent and clear. We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose. Although we believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, we think mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community.[11]

The difference between requiring and permitting is important enough that DI's participation in the Kitzmiller case hinged on that difference, and they ultimately declined to participate because Dover's policy was mandatory. So I think you'll agree that at least the 2nd of my three bullets is no nit.

Now, can we please discuss the specifics of the proposed compromise wording? What do you folks think about this version:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Is there anything there that anyone thinks is inaccurate, unbalanced, or even just clumsily worded? NCdave (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, if you're not going to listen to what other people say, I see no point in repeating the same material over again for you to ignore again. Suffice to say that I do not agree to your proposed rewording. For reasons why, look above, and stop your time-wasting attempts to succeed by repetition that which you have not achieved the first time. And no, it's not worth being a "sticker [sic]" for truth and accuracy when your attempted "fixes" muddle the issue more than they clarify it, and/or give a misleading impression to the reader unfamiliar with the details of the topic. --Ichneumon (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a typo. My page actually says "stickler." Thanks for the correction, Ichneumon. (How embarrassing to have a typo in a sentence about being a stickler for truth and accuracy!)

However, accuracy does not "muddle" or "mislead." Thus far, nobody has identified any problems with the proposed sentence. But the current version is misleading or inaccurate in multiple ways. Here it is again:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Look at all the inaccuracies in that sentence:

• The Kitzmiller trial didn't forbid anything, the presiding judge did. (Okay, this one's a nit.)
• Judge Jones didn't forbid teaching intelligent design, he blocked the requirement to make teachers read a statement about intelligent design. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• Jones' decision didn't forbid anything in the "American public schools," his ruling applied only to the Dover schools. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• "The government" is a misnomer, and an important one, since what is prohibited to one level of government is not always prohibited to others. (Okay, this one's maybe a nit, but it is kind of a pet peeve of mine.)
• Promotion of religion by government has not been held by the courts to violate the constitution in all cases. For example, the Congress and State legislatures customarily open with daily prayer, the military employs chaplains, currency displays the motto "In God We Trust," etc. (This is not a nit.)
• It is a gross oversimplification to say that the Establishment Clause (alone) enjoins government promotion of religion; see Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights). (You might think this is a nit, but I do not.)

That's six inaccuracies in just one sentence! Admittedly, a couple of them are nits. But even nits should be fixed. The proposed version fixes them all. So won't you please discuss it? NCdave (talk) 22:06, 27 March & 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent to bullets 2 and 3, this is what Judge Jones ordered:

"...we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

(The "ID Policy" was the school district's requirement "that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement [regarding ID] to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School...")

Note that Judge Jones' order applied to the Dover Area School District, not to "American public schools." Also, note that he enjoined the school district from requiring teachers to mention ID, or requiring them to "denigrate or disparage" evolution. He did not forbid teachers from teaching or disparaging anything at all. NCdave (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

May I assume, from the lack of replies/argument, that there is no disagreement with this list of inaccuracies in the current sentence, and thus no disagreement with the need to fix it? NCdave (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You can take from this that we're sick to death of your tendentious, disruptive & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments and have given up on searching through this way-over-bloated talk page to find them repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitmiller case established that ID is not science. Period. Rather, it is religious creationism. Period. Because ID is religion and not science, it will never be legal to teach it as science within American state schools anywhere: ID won't suddenly become science if it's taught in the next district, nor if it isn't made mandatory by the school board. That is the actual consequence of the Kitzmiller ruling, regardless of any technical details. That's why the DI is now complaining that Jones "shouldn't have ruled" on whether ID is science: because it is accepted that he DID so rule. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if a later judicial ruling overturns Kitzmiller, something highly unlikely to happen now, this might be reversed. The precedent established by this ruling is the thing that hurts ID badly. And I do not quite understand all the complaining about our wording; it appears accurate to me.

I also do not understand all the whining from the creationist community on this issue. What they really want is the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc). This is just pure nonsense, and of course it is opposed as unreasonable, which it should be. What if I tried to force your churches to preach that all their beliefs were nonsense every Sunday, or else I would put your preachers in jail? And forced your churches to pay for this? When you examine this in a bit of detail, the entire arguments fall apart.--Filll (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The KvD case is analogous to the McLean case. "Creation science" got its clock cleaned in McLean, but only for Arkansas, since the state of Arkansas declined to appeal the decision. The Edwards case got taken to the Supreme Court, and that's the decision that applies nationwide and is precedential for "creation science". McLean, though, certainly influenced the courts, and is largely the reason that the plaintiffs in Louisiana got a summary judgment leading to the Edwards case. As some wag put it, ID has had its McLean but not its Edwards. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you have some misconceptions regarding the ID hypothesis and its supporters. Nobody I've heard of who supports it wants "the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc)." Certainly there's no indication that any of the people involved with this movie hold such a view. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of folks like Dawkins who demand that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools. NCdave (talk)

NCdave, again you are confused and, to be blunt, flat out wrong (I guess this should not be too surprising, considering that you had never heard of Behe, the most important scientist in Intelligent Design, and the one scientist on whose testimony the Intelligent Design case rested on in KvD, yet you claim to be an ID expert and presume to lecture us on what ID is about and what ID people and supporters think about every single issue with some presumed authority and knowledge).

You should of course know that Dawkins is on record, numerous times, in print and in his books, of advocating the teaching of mandatory religion classes and comparative religion classes in publicly funded government secular schools (for example, read The God Delusion). You should also know that Dawkins at one time signed a petition arguing that religious upbringing of children should be illegal, but then withdrew his support for this campaign when he realized this would prevent the teaching of religion classes as he wanted in public secular schools with public tax money. That is not really promoting atheism, but choice, right? More information, not less. Knowing what the organizing principle is behind biology, that is subscribed to by over 99.9% of all professional biologists (over 99.99% by my calculations) is not about teaching atheism. If it causes trouble for biblical literalists, well their beliefs are either too fragile, or they need to consider other options for their children's educations, which are of course available to them. What they really are doing is not worrying about their own children's education (which they can already accommodate in many different ways), but wanting to force other people's children to get exposed to their own ridiculous beliefs.

The creationists and intelligent design proponents push to have less information available, so people have fewer choices, and less information on which to base their decisions. In state after state, and now in Florida, the intelligent design movement is all about forcing others to pay to promote the narrow religious beliefs of a tiny segment of the US population and an infinitesimally small fraction of Christendom and the world's population, and forcing others to preach their religious beliefs. Read the Wedge Document. Listen to the interviews with the producers of the film, or the interviews seeking to promote the film. These are not good people, or honest people. And before you promote their agenda much more, you should understand it a bit better.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can present a whole host of examples where ID advocates have attempted to have children "indoctrinated" with fallacious, religiously-motivated "criticisms" of evolution -- the Kansas & Ohio SBOEs come immediately to mind. Also, I would ask you to substantiate or retract your claim that Dawkins "demand[s] that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools." He may demand that they be taught accurate science, and may disapprove of them being indoctrinated with religion, but I highly doubt if he's ever demanded atheism indoctrination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wesley, you are correct about the court cases. As a matter of law, Judge Jones' ruling applies only to the Dover Area School District. Federal district judges do not create binding precedents for the whole country.

Also, Jones' order did not prohibit teaching about ID, it only prohibited a requirement to teach about ID. (Aside: the McLean and Edwards decisions regarding creation science also only prohibited a requirement to teach creation science.) NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was a "requirement to teach about ID" that he was ruling on, that is hardly surprising. However, his findings of fact and law would equally apply to 'unrequired' teaching in public schools as well. That is the power of a legal precedent -- it doesn't apply to just identical situations, but situations with sufficient similarity. And while it might not be binding outside the Federal District, it is likely to be influential (in the same way that Epperson v. Arkansas‎ was). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the Kitzmiller decision might influence future decisions. But it is not binding anywhere except in the Dover Area Schools. As it was not an appellate decision, it has no authority as a precedent elsewhere. So it isn't accurate to say that it "might not be binding" outside the Dover Area Schools. It is not binding anywhere else, there's no "might" about it. NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence about Kitzmiller in this Wikipedia article is wildly inaccurate. May we please discuss how to fix it? Here is a proposed replacement:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in public schools.

That doesn't explicitly make the point that Jones' decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools, but that might be more detail that is really necessary. Would anyone care to suggest improvements? Wesley, what do you think? NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with this heavily watered-down wording. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The only "watering down" I did in in that sentence was to omit the clear statement that the decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools. We could say:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools.

So what, specifically, don't you like about it, Hrafn? NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm sorry, but one or more of three things are true: 1. You have no knowledge of how legal systems ANYWHERE work. 2. You are a ridiculously tendentious editor or 3. ...Well, WP:CIVIL doesn't allow me to say 3.

"ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools." That is one of the most idiotic suggestions I have ever seen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Idiotic or not, it is factual. But we're now discussing a proposed replacement for a version of the sentence that is long gone from the article. The current version is much expanded, and is improved in several ways: it now explicitly states that what was at issue was a requirement to teach about ID (though the final sentence obfuscates that fact), and it no longer expounds unnecessarily & inaccurately on the Establishment Clause. The current version (reformatted as one paragraph) reads:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Kitzmiller was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The court ruling noted that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and that it was "not science" and, indeed, "fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science." The court concluded, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) and finally noted, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Despite the improvement, I still have problems with the current version. For one thing, it is way, way too long. More importantly, it is misleading in several ways:

• The summary of the Judge Jones' ruling draws entirely on his ancillary remarks, and not at all on what he actually ordered, which has the effect of dramatically increasing the apparent scope of the decision beyond what he actually ordered.
• There is no indication that this was a district-level case, which has no binding precedent authority outside the Dover Area Schools - an extremely important fact.
• There is no indication that this decision was the opinion of just one judge.

The last problem is trivially fixed, simply by substituting "the judge" for "the court," throughout. Or, better yet, substitute District Judge John E. Jones, III for the first one, and either "the judge" or "Judge Jones" for the 2nd one. Can we all agree on that simple change? NCdave (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your concerns, I don't agree with that one. If it's in the issued opinion, then it's the court, according to standard description of judicial opinions. You can throw in that "Jones wrote" something, but it's still the court. Only if it's an independent statement would you really say it's the Judge. However, I do agree that the paragraph is too long, and might suggest removing the block quote portion of it so people can see it's just a brief summary, and get more information about the case in that article. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave, you were blocked once for all this tendentious arguing. Can you please drop the damn quibbling? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's tendentious arguing or an unreasonable suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Okay, let us look at the two versions here and discuss changes.

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of what are portrayed as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[12] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist.[15] Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[17][18][19] but is viewed as creationism.[20]

vs.

The film claims that the theory of evolution is responsible for a range of what are portrayed as negative consequences, including communism, fascism, atheism, the Holocaust, and Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[12] Critics of this perspective point out that such claims are based in anecdotes, assumptions, or limited analyses, with no reliable studies to back this claim.[15] Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience,[17][18][19] due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses.[20]

Why is the second POV? What's the complaint here, exactly? Dolewhite (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. For what it's worth, I prefer the second one. The statement in the first that "the evidence [...] does not exist" seems a bit overstated, whereas the second version ("critics [...] point out that such claims are...") seems less disputable. --Ichneumon (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Claim" and "point out" are WP:WTAs.
2. If we are to use a language from the cited paper, it would be informative to look at the direct quote: "Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population" (emphasis mine -- a word that somehow got missed from the new language. "Agreement" based upon "assumption" implies evidence doesn't exist).
3. ID is creationism, specifically Neo-creationism. The list of science's legitimate reasons for dismissing it would fill an entire book. Giving only one of them underplays the scientific argument.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "claim" is to be avoided because it has a tendency to undermine the content. A mere tendency. Yet you have no problem at all with stating categorically that the evidence DOES NOT EXIST. Not that it hasn't been found, no, but that it cannot be found because it isn't out there. That's a disingenuous claim. Likewise, "point out" is criticized in the WP:WTA as it gives extra weight; it certainly doesn't give more weight than passing the opinion as direct fact.

The second point strikes me as nit-picking, but it still doesn't justify completely undoing the edits. If you want to see the language more closely mirrored, then change "assumptions" to "assumption" and "anecdotes" to "anecdotal evidence." I'd contend that the differences there are insubstantial, and the point of Wikipedia is not to be a collection of verbatim quotes alone. There's no justification in this claim for completely reverting it to the former version, which is even further from the information linked.

Finally, it has been stated again about a dozen times in the article that the consensus view is ID is form of creationism. You state it again and again and again and again and it's in the footnotes a few dozen times, too. There are many criticisms, but I'd contend firstly that the agreement on ID as pseudoscience is of primary importance, and second that the primary problem the scientific community would agree upon is that ID lacks the requisite falsifiability to be considered a scientific theory. As this is an encyclopedia article (in theory), it seems to me more useful to the reader to articulate the primary reasons for rejecting ID, rather than this litany of equivocation that only seems to me to confirm the suspicions of the ID community.

I really don't understand why opponents to ID are so dead-set on silencing the ID crowd. The entire force of intellectual honesty and good science weighs in on the part of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It seems counter-productive to engage in bush-league propagandists when honesty and truth favor presenting the material in unambiguous terms. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by making these edits that lead to such a heavy-handed article which clearly displays an intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to force the conversation.

This debate won't be settled by the film Expelled, and it certainly won't be settled by the intro to the Wikipedia article about the film Expelled. So let's just make an honest and encyclopedic article about THE FILM, and let the data speak for themselves, m'kay? Dolewhite (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise between the latest reverted-to & reverted-from versions. The article is still extremely unbalanced, but it would be a good first step if we could try to find some compromises. My version is about halfway[12][13] between Dave souza's and Dolewhite's. NCdave (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was obviously a waste of time.  :-(

How are we to ever achieve consensus, if some editors just revert without discussion or any willingness to compromise?

For instance, one of the two tiny bits of text that I retained from Dolewhite in the compromise version was this:

"Intelligent design is not considered to be valid science, due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses."

The current version is:

"Intelligent design is not considered to be valid science, but as creationist pseudoscience."

Can we talk about this? NCdave (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of what are portrayed as societal ills

vs

The film claims that the theory of evolution is responsible for a range of what are portrayed as negative consequences

The first one is much more readable. From what I have read the film does "blame" evolution. From what I have read, it's an assertion, not a case where the evidence is discussed.

from Communism to Planned Parenthood,

vs

including communism, fascism, atheism, the Holocaust, and Planned Parenthood

The first one flows much better. There's no need to list everything that they lay at the feet of evolution

The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist.

vs

Critics of this perspective point out that such claims are based in anecdotes, assumptions, or limited analyses, with no reliable studies to back this claim

"Critics...claim" is always bad form. We should avoid it. Presenting an obvious falsehood as a "perspective" is misleading.

Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[17][18][19] but is viewed as creationism.

vs

Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience,[17][18][19] due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses

I don't like "by scientific consensus" - it's too weak. Evolutionary biology is the foundation of modern biology. We don't say that "the theory of the element" is accepted by consensus in modern chemistry. The incompatibility of ID with science comes from its creationism, not its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses. The rejection of ID is its desire to inject supernaturalism into science. Supernaturalism is incompatible with science (as it is with medicine or law)...if you fail to reject "the impossible", you have no reason not to do like Dirk Gently and spend a three weeks in the Bahamas searching for a dog that was lost in England. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In no wise is supernaturalism a necessary consequence of creationism. In no wise is creationism a necessary consequence of intelligent design. It does not contribute to the discussion to make category mistakes. Aminorex (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Guettarda Angry Christian (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the 1st ("blames")

Agree on the 2nd (short list of ills), except that the two retained should be the two most prominent in the film. I'm pretty sure one of them is racism, and I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood is not one of them.

Strongly disagree with 3rd; "evidence... does not exist" overstates the case to the point of inaccuracy. Even anecdotes are evidence, they just aren't necessarily persuasive evidence.

Disagree on the 4th. The problem with ID in the scientific community is not that it is mistaken for creationism, but that it is arguably untestable, due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses. (Of course, theories of the abiotic origins of life have the same problem.)

Disagree on the final comment, too. ID is not inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Also, "scientific consensus" is code language for "we are not sure enough to permit debate" (thanks, Dalewhite, for that great link!).

Also, "supernaturalism" as you call it is incompatible with neither medicine nor law. Have you never been sworn in to testify in a court case, with your hand on a Bible? In fact, George Washington's opinion was that atheism and agnosticism are incompatible with our judicial system. He wrote, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.... Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" NCdave (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, once again you demonstrate you are wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. The fact that ID "theory" cannot be tested does not make it secular. We have a court ruling and every science organization in North America saying ID is creationism/pseudoscience I am sick of your disruptions and ignorance on the subject of ID, Kitzmiller, etc. Sick of it. Angry Christian (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ID advocates claim that it can be tested, so I cannot take your claims to the contrary as a given, without evidence or argument to support them. Your sickness is of no interest or concern to Wikipedia.Aminorex (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Have you never been sworn in to testify in a court case, with your hand on a Bible?" Nope. I think the only time I have set food inside a court house was in Dayton, Tennessee, to visit the Skopes trial museum.

But you miss the point. Swearing on the Bible does not invoke supernaturalism - not as long as you accept the fact that people can lie all they want under oath (and not be struck dead). The idea of supernaturalism in courts of law would be to allow "demonic possession" as an acceptable defense. Courts don't generally accept as a defense "since you didn't see him pull the trigger, you need to allow the possibility that it was just coincidence, and some force we can't explain (but we'll call it God in private) is actually a more reasonable explanation since you weren't there and you can't prove it!" Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, NCdave suceeded in introducing complete nonsense and side tracking your proposal. I think it's important that we do not lose sight of our objective to improve the article. What you have suggested makes it better. This is the kind of disruption that leads to good editors leaving an article and the article never matures. We need to move forward and ignore nonsense and disruptions. Angry Christian (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AC, will you please discuss the article, instead of attacking the editors? NCdave (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Blames"..."unfairly blames" is probably much more accurate (although, of course, trickier when it comes to sourcing). Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, again, I would encourage you to learn about Wikipedia policies. And note making an observation about behaviour here on the talk page, even characterizing nonsense as nonsense is not making a personal attack. It's making an observation. A personal attack would be something like FUCK YOU which is not permitted. Angry Christian (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v Dover primer

Several editors have expressed a lack of knowledge about Kitzmiller. You can watch the entire Nova special Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on trial here. It's even broken into smaller "chapters" to make online viewing easier. It's a pretty good place to start. Angry Christian (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link, AC. NCdave (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. There are also interviews and other material not in the film on the Nova site. A treasure trove of links to other articles and official documents (briefs, testimony, ruling etc) awaits anyone interested in the subject at the Kitzmiller v Dover article. The thing that fascinates me about Kitzmiller is the fact that some of the best minds from both sides of the argument gave testimony which was refereed by a federal judge. This beats the heck out of these public kangaroo hearings or staged "debates" Angry Christian (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank God we scientists have federal judges to settle our disputes for us. Consensus science strikes again!. Dolewhite (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What a great link, Dolewhite! That article is what should be required reading in the Dover, PA schools.  ;-) NCdave (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of god filing a brief in that trial so I don't see how thanking him enters into the discussion. I thought I had read all the briefs submitted to the court but perhaps I overlooked that one. Jones did not mention any argument made by god in his ruling so I suspect whatever role god played in Kitzmiller was insignificant. Angry Christian (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AC, the DI did not participate in the Kitzmiller case at all. The Dover folks brought a knife to a gunfight. NCdave (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (strikeout added 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC) by NCdave)

NCdave, actually they did. Please see the numerous amicus briefs the Discovery Institute filed in the kitzmiller V Dover trial here. A bit of trivia - You'll note the Discovery Institute specifcially asked Judge Jones to rule whether or not ID is science. You seem like a bright guy, I suspect you'll enjoy being familair with the subject matter. It will enhance your ability to contribute to the article and probably earn the respect of your fellow editors. I would encourage you to learn about this important court case, especilly if you are wanting us to listen to your opinions on the matter. And more accurately the Dover folks brought religion to a public science class. Angry Christian (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also read transcripts of all of the testimony here You mentioned you did not know who Michale Behe is. His transcript is there as well. Angry Christian (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, AC, and I thank you for the information and the links. I was relying on Barbara Forrest's statement that, "DI did not want this case, because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC, had explicitly crafted its policy to promote 'intelligent design.'" She was talking about the withdrawal of several DI-provided expert witnesses from participation in the case. However, apparently the DI people bailed out after they'd already filed (and then revised and refiled) their amicus brief. So the DI had some level of involvement in the case, though perhaps not much in the actual trial. My bad. NCdave (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The DI certainly did not want the case; they had long ago given up on using the "intelligent design" label as the thin edge of the wedge for inserting ye old-time religious antievolution arguments into science classrooms. That has nothing to do, though, with whether they were involved, which they certainly were. Five DI Fellows were signed on as expert witnesses by TMLC early in 2005. Michael Behe and Scott Minnich were the first two to be deposed. Sometime following those depositions, Bruce Chapman, one of the founders of the DI, figured out that the Dover case was a loser, and requested the DI Fellows not participate (stated in an interview in 2006). Thought there's a great deal of murk surrounding exactly what went on behind the scenes, the fallout was obvious: three out of five DI Fellows were withdrawn as witnesses by TMLC. (TMLC itself promoted two contradictory stories of how Dembski came to be withdrawn from the case. One, the "the DI was a jackass" version is in a press account:

But Richard Thompson, Thomas More president, said the decision to not use the three experts had nothing to do with their positions on intelligent design and whether it should be mandated in a classroom. Rather, he said he objected to the experts bringing along their own lawyers, calling it a “conflict of interest.” “The case involves the school board and the parents,” he said. “Now, if you have attorneys coming in and representing the experts and their attorneys are saying, ‘Don’t answer that question,’ then you have a conflict with the aims of the school board.” Thompson said the problem arose in the past several weeks when the Discovery Institute insisted that its people have separate legal representation.

The other appears in legal documents in the case, the "Dembski was browbeaten by the cruel Darwinists" version in, IIRC, their motion for a protective order in the case.) By mid-June, it was clear that the three DI no-shows were gone from the case in any capacity for TMLC. The DI afterwards sought to influence the case, though, through machinations to have the Foundation for Thought and Ethics made a co-defendant, a move that would have brought at least William Dembski and perhaps Stephen Meyer back into the case as expert witnesses handled by lawyers more amenable to suggestion by the DI. After that failed, the DI submitted an amicus brief containing the expert report Meyer as an appendix. Judge Jones disallowed the submission. There's a hilarious interchange in the trial transcript with the TMLC lawyers disavowing any connection to the illicit smuggling of withdrawn expert witnesses back into the case, and a comment there about the legal ineptitude shown by the DI. The DI did manage to file an amicus brief accepted by the court eventually, minus the expert report. Want? No. Involved? Yes, and right through the end stage of the proceedings. There's no problem with Forrest's description, but there are all sorts of problems with the erroneous version in the comment by NCDave just previous. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, NCdave. Did you read the parts where the TMLC and the DI tried to get Barbara Forrest disqualified as an expert witness? It's pretty hilarious. Angry Christian (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but being on the board of a secular humanist association, IMO, gives the appearance of bias on her part. NCdave (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we likewise allowed to eliminate everybody who is a member of any Christian organisation on the grounds of "appearance of bias"? This is rank hypocrisy! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Being a Christian does not make one automatically either supportive of or hostile to ID (or this movie). That is not a primary focus of Christianity. However, being on the board of a secular humanist association does imply hostility to ID, because promoting atheism is what secular humanist associations are all about. ID has nothing to say about Biblical creationism, but it does say that atheism is erroneous. NCdave (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All Christian are theists. ID is a theistic position. Therefore Christians are predisposed to be more sympathetic to ID than atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Pantheists, etc. Therefore Christians are biased. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, may I assume that we're agreed on the six inaccuracies in the current sentence, and my proposed replacement, here? Or does someone have a better idea? NCdave (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you may assume that we are sick of citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at you over them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Theistic" scientists?

MennoMan added the descriptor[14] "theistic" to Mathis' comment on scientists such as Collins. While Genie Scott's term "theistic evolution" has come to be accepted, it's far from perfect. "Theistic scientists" would be people who work on "theistic science". "Theist scientists" maybe (though that would come across as contrasting with deists), though even that is less than optimal. But "theistic scientists" is, IMO, misleading. Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. More to the point, the phrase is assigned to Walt Ruloff, and at least according to the source, he doesn't use that term "theistic" as a qualifier. It's misleading at best. I'm going to remove that. Dolewhite (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we use a term like, Scientists that believe in theism, or something like that. It doesn't read well, but we can re-word it. Saksjn (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the source? Did Walt qualify it as such? If not, then no, we should leave it be. Dolewhite (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "religious scientists" or "Scientists who are religious" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How about simply "theist scientists" -- which implies that the theism applies to the scientist (as a person) not the science that they study. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Hrafn. Saksjn (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever's closest to what Ruloff actually said. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not "religious scientists." That would suggest those who practice the religion Religious Science. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! I'd never heard of them until you mentioned 'em. NCdave (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks works for Baylor University, the title given to him by Baylor University is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2003-present)

I realize his position sounds peacockish, but that is what his title is. I had put it in caps (as it is on the Baylor website) which indicates it is a title and not a description but it continues to be reverted. It has been reverted several times. I don't think hiding the title given to him where he works from the article shows good faith. The man's title is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and I don't think we should hide his title in favor of describing his work ("engineering professor").

We spell out what people's current titles are (except Shermer, he doesn't seem to have a single title) and we're hiding Marks. This is uncalled for. If you don't like Mark's title or think it sounds too peacockish please take it up with Baylor University and stop reverting accurate information. I spent quite a bit of time researching what these people currently do and making sure I had accurate information. If i need to put a ref/source after every sinlge word I add to the article I'll be happy to do that. Whoever keeps reverting this might want to look up the information themselves, like I did.

I will let it stand as is for a day in case anyone has a different idea or thinks I'm mistaken (or insane), and then I plan to add Robert Marks' title back to the article as it should be. Again, I admit I could be wrong. I am not familiar with any Wiki policies that state we must/should/can hide a person's title given to them by their employer if we don't like the way it sounds. Again, I am all ears for competing ideas and in light on new evidence I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong and hang it up. Angry Christian (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added his job title(s) again and added the other folks presented in the film. I removed Marks' fellowships for reasons of economy. If we add every fellowship he or dawkins or the others have we'll end up dwarfing the content. I left the DI fellowships for the other folks since those are highly relevant to the claims made in the subject matter/film. Angry Christian (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why his title matters - his or anyone else's. A simple description (with a lot fewer capital letters) strikes me as more encyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits

I am starting to wonder how many more interviews and reviews we can accommodate. Maybe just a list of a few more if there are too many? --Filll (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we start culling the less noteworthy ones (the World Magazine one comes to mind -- it's a fairly minor/extremist rag). The ones we keep should be noteworthy for generating further controversy (e.g. The Orlando Sentinel one), being in a major national paper, or being written by somebody prominent (either prominent scientist, movie critic or political commentator). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure we have plenty both positive and negative. And some of the more negative ones are longer, so to balance those we need some more positive reviews, even if less notable otherwise.--Filll (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're longer then we simply need to summarise them more. The overall effect should be WP:DUE weight -- if every prominent source is saying bad things & only obscure ones are saying good, then the coverage should be weighted towards the bad. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree - we'd get a false dichotomy otherwise. Anyway, why not quote Rush Limbaugh or the other big-name conservative/evangelicals on the film instead of scouring for obscure and less notable newspapers? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Every review by a marginally rational person is going to say the movie sucks and is nothing but propaganda, bad (mistaken) propaganda at that. The other review will be from the choir who will say it brought tears to their eyes. I think we should include only the most noteworthy reviews and try and keep some balance. Also can the FL action be rolled into it's own article or added to the Discovery Institute campaigns? We haven;t even added the rest of the people who appear in the film and this thing is going to be a huge article if we're nto careful. Angry Christian (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

World Magazine is most certainly not minor or extremist. It is a very well-respected national Christian newsmagazine, and far more notable than a local newspaper. NCdave (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its own mission statement declares otherwise: "...to report and analyze the news on a weekly schedule in an interesting, accurate, and arresting fashion, and to combine reporting with practical commentary on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God". So they're inerrantists, i.e. fundies. Whatever they have to say would inevitably follow their declared agenda, and is therefore not very interesting. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a conservative Evangelical magazine. It's editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky (who is also the review's author) is associated with Christian reconstructionism and Dominionism, which I think justifies "extremist". See [[Marvin Olasky#World magazine for more details. It's article describes it as "the magazine started small, initially requesting donations in every issue to stay afloat. It has grown steadily ever since, and its publishers express hope of someday reaching the circulation level of the nation's top secular newsweeklies." -- which would seem to indicate that it has yet to achieve "national" stature. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just called World, and they said their paid circulation currently fluctuates between 123,000 and 125,000. That's twice what The New Republic has, and almost equal to National Review. But it is a tiny fraction of U.S. News & World Report's 2 million. NCdave (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:RS#Extremist sources applies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about RC Sproul? 700 Club? CBN? We have 9 reviews now (4 negative, 5 positive). Should we have 20 reviews? 50? At some point we get to a limit. Also we have a few interviews, but what if we have 5 times as many? 10? --Filll (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think prominence should be given to those who are experts on the medium (i.e. professional film critics) or content (i.e. scientists, philosophers, historians and sociologists of science). Outside those groups, I think they'd need national-level prominence to warrant any significant mention in the article. How many prominent experts (with expertise as defined above) do we currently have? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Order...ORDER I SAY!

That was a joke. Ha ha. But speaking of order...Once we've seen the movie or more know we might want to see if it would make sense to change the oder of some of the article to match the order that people or ideas are presented in the film. The order now seems to be random and I'm not suggesting that's good or bad. Anyhow, it might be something to consider if it looks like it would improve the flow of the article. Angry Christian (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not much we can do at the moment =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA Inconsistencies

The Wikipedia entry for this documentary is inconsistent with other Wikipedia documentaries entered into this webstie. I spent some time comparing this entry with three other equally controversial documentaries entered here. They are as follows

1. An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore 2. Farenheit 911 - Michael Moore 3. Fitna - Geert Wilders

The following observations should be drawn from a review of the above referenced entries:

1. Neither Fitna, Moore, Gore, or any of their constituents/supporters referenced are ever stated to "claim" any of their premises. They either "present", "investegate, "focus", etc., but I did not see the action word "claim" used in any of the Wikipedia entries for these three documentaries. Bill Stein and his supporters/constituents however, are stated to "claim" their premises 16 times within this Wikipedia entry.

(When one is quoted as "claiming" something, it puts the burden of proof on the person making the statement in journalistic circles, and thats fine if you want to present it that way, but be consistent with this in regards to the other documentaries listed above)

2. There is a we/they theme in the writing of this entry. In the other three entries, the producers and supporters are not referenced as "they, their, them", etc. like in this entry.

3. This entry contains far more discussion on the topic of the movie than on the movie itself. This is another inconsistency from the other three entries listed above. In fact, this entry is about twice as long as any of the other three entries referenced. The result of discussing the topic far more than the movie itself.

The conclusion is this entry is far too editorialized and goes beyond what appears to be the established norm for entries about controversial documentaries within this site. I estimate three quarters of this entry should be cut and pasted to Creationism vs. Intelligent Design. Those that disagree with Mr. Stein have been given the upper hand on this entry. Should those that disagree with Gore, Moore, and Fitna also be given an upper hand in their entries? SargonXii (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"An inconvenient truth" has large sections of "background" information comparable to that on this article. Furthermore, the two films are not comparable, because Gore's film is widely regarded by scientists as broadly accurate and informative: whereas this one seems to be entirely devoid of accurate content, and the antics of the film's producers and promoters merely makes things worse: the "controversy" is in a whole different league. Why did you choose that example for comparison, rather than (for instance) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That article contains only brief details of the book, and mostly discusses its reception and refutation.

And "the people that disgree", in this case, represent the views of the scientific community and the opinions of notable experts. Should they be "given the upper hand"? Yes, absolutely, as per WP:UNDUE. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth is discussed on this site in the context of the movie far more than its topic is. Expelled is not given the same presentation here so your suggestions are grossly inaccurate. There are many scientists who label An Inconvenient Truth a film devoid of accurate content. According to your standard, these scientists that question the validity of global warming should be the ones to be given the upper hand in presenting the entry on Wikipedia for An Inconvenient Truth. The voice of dissension should have a say of course, but should their viewpoint permeate and dominate the entry? In my opinion, the answer is no.

I chose the movies I chose because they were the only documentaries that came to mind. I have never heard of the movie you suggested but I will look into it, thanks.

The science community is divided over the reality, source, and rectification of "global warming". There is by no means a consensus even among scientists. The same science community is also divided over certain areas of evolutionary theory, particulary in regards to origins and change of species (macro). In some areas of evolutionary theory however, there is a consensus.

There are equally trained, equally intelligent, equally passioned scientists on both sides of the global warming and evolutionary theories. Each tends to write the other side off claiming alterior motives. The atheist wants to prove there is no intelligent designer, the deist wants to prove there is, and both use the scientific evidence available to support their causes. To suggest one is biased and one is not is like burying one's head in the sand and denying such a premise could exist. The same is taking shape for Global Warming it seems.

see The Burning Times for another example of an article on a "documentary" that completely flunks at its chosen topic. A documentary isn't an artistic work of fiction, it claims to have a grounding in fact. If it fails to have that in spite of the claim, the article will reflect that. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough assertion dab, I don't disagree with presenting both the positive and negative of a documentary film on a Wikipedia entry. This entry is dominated by negativity and none of us have even seen the movie. We are relying on the opinions of those that would find a way to be critical of the movie regardless of content and those that would find a way to promote the movie regardless of content. Until the movie comes out, do we really know anything other than what is stated by bias sources? SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times do the sources use the word "claim"? Perhaps we overuse this word, but the problem is that this article is not particularly well written because no editor has seen the film yet, and there are few professional reviews to choose from. In addition, most of what we know about the film revolves around the associated controversies. Things are changing rapidly, so the article is in a state of flux, and no one feels like cleaning up the writing because it will be changed in a few hours again anyway. So what is the point? Do you want to spend 50 hours cleaning up this article and then have all that effort discarded within a day or two? I have done it twice and I am not anxious to do so again. You are free to waste 50 or more hours of your own time if you want. Feel free. But I guarantee most of it will be wasted.

When I gauged this article a few weeks ago, about 90 percent directly related to the film, not counting footnotes. The rest was there for context and background. Since then, the background has been cut back and more material directly about the film has been added.

This article is written according to the principles of Wikipedia, including NPOV and NOR and RS etc. If you do not like that, there are many other wikis which follow other principles. You are welcome to go there.--Filll (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll, basically you are telling me and anyone that disagrees with you, if we don't like it we can leave. The problem is this site is being relied upon by an unsuspecting public. You can rip to shreds anything you don't agree with here, and that is your right, but let the public know there is no intent or obligation to remain unbiased. When a source of information is presented from a biased source, and you know its biased, then you accept the information with a grain of salt. When a source of information is presented as if it were unbiased, then that is propaganda Filll.

SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have rules here. You can either follow the rules, or try to force others to not follow the rules, and break the rules yourself. If you choose to try to force others to break the rules and break the rules yourself, then it is better that you leave. Is that so difficult to understand?--Filll (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you seem to have a great concern for following the "rules". In reading above, I noticed four rules for editing here. They are 1. Be polite, 2. Assume good faith 3. No personal attacks 4. Be welcoming I thought you might like to be reminded of these for future entries. Thanks for your concern of the rules and for following them. We all appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SargonXii You're welcome to help us improve the article Angry Christian (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you AC, I did suggest some changes below under a new topic heading, but it wasn't met with much support. I think I changed four words perhaps? How dare I. SargonXii (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles

Some people here have been insisting on using Marks honorific title in place of his job title/description. There's a difference between job descriptions/title and honorific titles I suggest people there learn. The reason I remove it is because the others that have honorific titles like Dawkins don't have them used at the article, giving Marks special treatment. If you're going to use honorific titles for one there you need to use them for all that have them in order to avoid favoring one side of the debate. Odd nature (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, at least on some counts (especially we should avoid all honorific titles for all these folks). Would you mind looking at his full Vita at Baylor's website, especially under the heading "Employment" it appears to me that this is in fact his job title and not an honorary designation. [15] Or am I mistaken? Angry Christian (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

His job description is professor of engineering and director. Please see Guettarda's comment about this up above as well. Odd nature (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure whether any of these titles are really all that meaningful to the average reader, but for comparison, the article calls Dawkins "a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer", while it calls Marks "the Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Engineering Graduate Director at Baylor University". Dawkins actually holds an endowed chair. Marks is a "distinguished professor", which is probably a lesser distinction. As for "of Electrical and Computer Engineering", that's just the name of his department. Being graduate director is a relatively minor administrative position, a step below "associate chair". Of course, capitalising terms like "Assistant Professor" and "Staff Scientist" seem a bit silly as well. Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so this issue is not that someone cannot tell the difference between an honorific title and an employment title, nor is the issue someone has uded puffery to bolster one of the ID folks (for the record, I'd be the last guy to prop these nitwits up), the issue is both of you do not want Marks' job title in this article. Why not just come out and say that instead of insinuating I am up to no good or implying adding a title in an article is silly? I am also a reader that is exactly the kind of information I look for in an article. Why not just say "we don't like his job title and we'll revert you everytime you put it in the article" and be honest about it instead of suggesting I'm a IDiot? I'll just say I cannot begin to express how much I disagree with you both. But it's not worth my time to argue over it. Angry Christian (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've reverted the edit at all. But no, I don't think that formal job titles are useful - not for Marks, not for anyone else. Listing job titles does read like puffery. I'm not accusing you of being an IDist, I don't think' ' you're an IDist.

Listing Marks' full title is puffery. All job titles are puffery. Listing Marks' job title and not listing everyone else's is both puffery and inconsistent. The only real title that means anything is Dawkins' endowed chair. And that doesn't belong in the article either. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everyone's title is listed, including Dawkins' endowed chair, so it seems like the inconsistency at the moment is in the omission of Marks' complete job title.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnier yet is if you look at Demsbki, Behe, PZ Meyers, heck pretty much any biography you see their here at Wikiland includes the job title. I suppose my biggest issue is I took the time to research the various Wiki policies on the subject, looked at various biographies here and took the time to try and figure out just what the hell Marks is at Baylor. No one who has said Marks job title should not be used has offered anything in the form of a policy. It's "silly" and "puffery" well fuck I didn't give him that title, take it up with Baylor for crying out loud. The fact the only objection or revert has to do with Marks is an obvious tip off. To make it even funnier I could care less about Robert Marks and his moronic "infomatics" shell game where he and Dembski dress up and play scientist on a baylor server. Baylor is pretty much a nutcase university anyhow. I mean the pre sident of Baylor thinks the world is 6,000 years old? How insane is that? Anyhow, I simply don't think that people will read Marks job title and conclude "darwinism" leads to nazism because that is exactly what this is about. Otherwise every single title would have been reverted years ago including PZ Myers bio, Dawkins bio, Kenneth Millers bio, Dembskis bio, Behes bio and on and on. Again, if I go to battle over an article it won't be Marks job title, it aint worth my time but this is obvious, wholesale bullshit. Let's be honest. Seriously. Angry Christian (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's "silly" and "puffery" well fuck I didn't give him that title, take it up with Baylor for crying out loud.

Umm...how is that possibly relevant? I said - all job titles are puffery - pretty much by definition. They are high sounding peacockery which serve in lieu of actually paying people more. So why should we be using them? We aren't here to serve as a PR unit for Baylor, or UM Morris, or Oxford. "Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering" isn't a job description, it's a minor honour bestowed on Marks by Baylor. It isn't a job title, it's a pat on the back.

Note the difference between Dawkins' job title:

Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and Professorial Fellow of New College

and the description in the article:

Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. He holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

Compare that with

Robert Marks is the Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Engineering Graduate Director at Baylor University

Now, in my opinion, the whole bit about the Charles Simonyi Chair is unnecessary, but at least it's a real position. A "Distinguished Professor" isn't a position - the position is a "1.0 FTE tenure track position".

Otherwise every single title would have been reverted years ago including PZ Myers bio, Dawkins bio, Kenneth Millers bio, Dembskis bio, Behes bio and on and on

The point is that this isn't a bio. In a bio you do list honourifics. It's appropriate to document them. The point of these sections is to briefly introduce the people. It isn't a place to list titles and create proper nouns out of common nouns.

Let's be honest. Seriously.

What part of what I have said do you consider dishonest? If you want to call me dishonest, at least have the courtesy of actually addressing what I said. Please support your accusations or remove them. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda asked me to respond on my talk page so here goes...

Guettarda, you asked another question that I want to address first:

"I don't understand why his title matters - his or anyone else's."

As a reader I want to know what "poor" "persecuted Caroline Crocker is up to nowadays. Is she homeless and begging for spare change outside of 7-11 because the mean old darwinists threa her out on the street? No, she's the executive director of the DI inspired IDEA "group" that promotes ID in our higher learning centers. And according to her website for $5,000 she'll tell you and your freinds her tale of persecution (and how evolution causes nazism). Persecution pays ;-) I want to know what Richard "I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar" Sternberg is doing nowadays after his fisco at the Smithsonian. I was fascinated when I found out he is still a volunteer at the Smith and his title is research collaborator. I suspect other people find interest in those details too. I also want to know what PZ Myers title is, and the others. I'm curious and like details and if we have details for one person we should have them for all. I kept noticeing someone was reverting Marks's title over and over, didn't pay attention to who at first. But then I started seeing the baseless WP:Peacock accusation and started paying attention to who kept reverting it. Incidently, Odd Nature if you're going to accuse people of violating WP:Peacock would you mind reading the policy first? If you do so you'll be less likely to to look like a back woods fool in the future. As anyone can see, well anyone who has taken the time to read it, Marks title is in no way a violation of WP:Peacock.

I had gone to the help desk here to confirm using title was appropriate and they gave me feedback and also a link to a policy or two. I even added a link to his employment page to demonstrate this was not peacockery but legit. I had obviously asked for feedback and reasons why my Marks title kept getting deleted at least couple time here and no one ever responded until you did after it appeared Odd Nature and I might be headed for a revert hassle.

There is not a Wikipedia policy that discourages or forbids employment titles and I noticed no one reverted anyones title but Marks. And you and I both know if I started deleting people's titles on other pages I'd be treated as a vandal. Rightfully so.

The only reason Marks's title was deleted is because Odd Nature does not want the reader to see it. THAT is the dishonest piece. There is no Wiki policy to justify it. Odd Nature said complained that Marks' title might appear to "favoring one side of the deabte". Well some people are not trying to favor either side of the debate, some people are trying to write an informative and accurate article.

The real irony is as I have said I don't care about Robert Marks or his title. But I do have an interest in this article and I think the title of the cast of characters is noteworthy. Others expressed a similar take so it's not like wanting to know a controversial person's title is a fringe idea.

Hiding Marks's title while allowing the others is an obvious dishonest sham and I've been around long enough to know where it would go if I were to press the issue. I'm grouchy often, but not a dumb ass. I don't have time for accusations of violating 3Rs...Or fucking around with an RFC. I have a life, seriously. I wife, kids, home, hobbies, sitting around jacking with some RFC on my free time is not my idea of quality living.

So I want to be clear, Odd Nature's removal of Robert Marks' title is a dishonest sham that is grounded in his feeble fear of people being informed and has nothing to do with any Wikipedia policy. That is what I mean by let's be honest and not pussy foot around.

Finally, Guettarda, I do not consider you dishonest or a liar. In fact you're one of the people I respect around here, but even your behaviour in this particular matter has me scratching my head because you have not lifted a finger to remove all the titles used in the article for the others folks but you sat and did nothing as Odd Nature ONLY removed the one for Marks. This selective editing is highly suspect (aka a fucking sham). Again, I could care less about Marks, this is purely a principle thing.

Anyhow, that sums up where I'm coming from and yes this is my final answer. I have no interst in discussing any of this or looking edits or hearing any more arguments. I'm done with it :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Producer Mark Mathis

in the text, he is mentioned to be a (the?) producer of the film, but the film's info box does not mention him. Shouldn't we remove that inconsistency? Northfox (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, especially since he seems to be the only one (other than stein) who regularly gets mentioned in the papers in conjunction with the movie. I was thinking that he had someone remove his name from it for some reason -- he has no wiki article himself! (I don't know that he's all that notable anyways...) Elecmahm (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

according to [16] (and they should know), Mathis is an assistant producer. Correct job titles are important, so I took the liberty to change 'producer' to 'assistant producer' where it appeared in the article text.Northfox (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that until the movie comes out and IMDB gets properly updated, we might not have the complete list. For example, IMDB lists Ruloff as an author. Maybe I should add him to the list. Who knows?--Filll (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Claims that scientists were misled by interviewers" additional information

This section should really mention the whole "domain registration" issue -- apparently the domain "expelledthemovie.com" was registered by them a couple months BEFORE PZ and Dawkins were questioned by the filmmakers; So their claim that "Crossroads" was simply the working title are very dubious. This information should really be included in the appropriate section of this article, as I think it's very pertinent. How should it be sourced? We could probably find a WHOIS link to show when the domain was initially registered. Elecmahm (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to second this. I actually came to the talk page to suggest the same thing. It's also mentioned in the last three paragraphs of Dawkins' "Lying for Jesus?" blog article. It's a piece of objective evidence that makes the deceitful practices of the makers of the film blatantly obvious. -- HiEv 07:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there's more on the topic. Interviews with Ben Stein have him contradicting the story Mathis insists upon concerning "Crossroads" and raises the likelihood that the "Expelled" producers used (without permission) the Harvard/XVIVO animation to recruit Stein for the project. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- I'm going to go ahead and add this under the "Interview Controversy" section. Here are some references I'm using: Whois.net entry for expelledthemovie.com and Whois.net entry for expelledmovie.com. The former entry was created on March 2nd 2007, (registered through Tucows) the latter one month later (via Godaddy). But both domains point to the Expelled movie's website. PZ claims he was contacted in April 2007. I've been looking for some corroboration on this point, but have not yet found any. Is it worth noting in the wiki article anyways, perhaps with the preface that it's a claim made by PZ himself? I don't think this is damning PROOF of deception, but it certainly lends credibility to those that claim they were deceived. Elecmahm (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph: Suggested Slight Changes to Remove Editorial Bias in Introduction

I have written a slightly revised opening paragraph for this entry that removes some of the subtleties that sway the reader from an objective point of view...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which suggests that some educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the movie investigates if what the film calls "Big Science" allows no dissent from the theory of evolution. The movie goes on to associate the theory to a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood. It is due to be released April 18, 2008.

The above suggested revisions to the opening paragraph takes some of the editorial edge off the existing opening paragraph with only miniscule changes. Feel free to use this revision.

SargonXii (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the film "investigates if what the film calls 'Big Science' allows no dissent from the theory of evolution"? Come on. That is a load of nonsense. And probably plagiarism. We are not here to promote this film you know.--Filll (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question Filll, yes, what you suggest is what I think. However, I will have to wait until the movie is released so I can view and then decide if the movie is a "load of nonsense" as you suggest. It could be, but until we all watch it, we should be reserving judgment. My above suggested changes are miniscule and bring the opening paragraph into a more objective point of view. As the opening paragraph is written now, it looks like something written by any left leaning establishment. SargonXii (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally liked SargonXii's version, with a few changes. How about "makes the case that" instead of "investigates if." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for taking to time to provide some ideas for changes here on the talk page. I have some minor conerns about your suggestions. First he film does not "suggest" or "investigate" anything. They shout it as loud as they can and cry persecution. The write antagonistic articles on their blog portraying PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins as Big Science "Thought Police". They indulge in all sorts of nasty character assassinations, the movie does the same. Going from Dawkins to death camps to PZ Myers to death camps. That's propaganda to entice emotion and prejudice, not a documentary that "investigates". From everythning I have seen and read they don't investigate anyhthing, they make a one sided case against the scientific community and portray evolution as a cause for Nazism. Your suggestions would be awesome if we were talking about a documentary, but this is a propaganda piece that is composed of distortions and claims that are simply not true (demonstrably fale). That is what makes editing it so difficult, it's riddles with dishonesty. Maybe someone else has some ideas, I find the intro as it is to be acceptable. Angry Christian (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While there are many who consider it to be a propaganda piece, there are many others who consider it a documentary. We must make sure we don't give undue weight to either viewpoint. Incidentally, I too think the opening is acceptable as is for now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While there are many who consider it to be a propaganda piece, there are many others who consider it a documentary. We must make sure we don't give undue weight to the either viewpoint. Incidentally, I too think the opening is acceptable as is for now. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

JBF, with all due respect we are not obligated to give equal weight to a fringe idea nor are we obligated to soften the harsh and antagonostic quality of this propaganda piece. Inconvenient Truth is controversial, this is an your face DARWIN CAUSED THE JEWS TO DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS! "documentary" But you and I agree the intro is not broken. Angry Christian (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a piece of vile disgusting hate mongering propaganda by evil people. That is what it really is. And full of lies. What if I made a "documentary" that made the same sort of commentary about fundamentalist Christians? "Christians are disgusting pigs that kill children and drink their blood. Christians are stupid and want to kill all Jews. Christians cause all wars and should be put to death for their crimes." Would that be a good "documentary"? Give me a break here.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, you assume I am a christian, and a fundamental one at that. May I remind you that Ben Stein is Jewish? Christianity, along with Judiasm and Islam have their roots in a Creator. I don't see any challenges to Judiasm or Islam in your previous paragraph, only Christianity. You seem to feel free to write hate filled statements towards christians, but would you dare to do the same towards the Jews and/or Muslims who carry a similar belief (I realize not all of them believe the same) in regards to our origins? My bigger concern though, is if someone with your apparent hatred towards one group of people should even be involved in editing here?SargonXii (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll clearly posited a hypothetical. I didn't take Filll's argument to convey any hate toward anyone. I'd say, "SargonXii", that you have validated his argument. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll is correct. Had they taken any group of people on other than "atheists" and "darwinists" it would be called hate speech. Interesting to note that the last creationist propagande piece that portrayed "Darwinism" as the cause for Nazism was slammed by the Anti-Defamation League for trivializing the Holocaust and blaming Darwin for it. Check it out ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler. Angry Christian (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest opinion AC. I assume you have seen the film since you are more sure than I as to whether the film "suggests" or "investigates" anything. I cannot vouch for the content of the film for I have not seen it. My suggested word use I feel does not promote a positive or negative viewpoint of the film, only an unbiased one.

Perhaps their website attacks others as you suggest, I will have to review. Even if what you propose is true, is that justification to return the attack via the Wikipedia website? Michael Moore visciously attacked President Bush over the events of 911, the presidents character was ripped apart, yet I don't see the gross negativity in the Wikipedia posting against Mr. Moore and his movie Farenheit 911 that I see here on Bill Steins production. A comparison of the two movies implies bias. And thats fine if its the case, but the readers need to know that.

It sounds as if Expelled is as much a documentary as An Inconvenient Truth or Farenheit 911 or the newly released Fitna. There are just as many who would suggest all three of these movies are simply propaganda pieces as well. Is this justification to present the movies in a negative light here on Wikipedia as well?

Don't forget that Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ was called a movie that would increase Anti-semitism. Did it? Darwinian theory at its source suggests that some men are further along the evolutionary chain than others. Nazism thought the same thing. Whether Darwinism was the source of the Nazi belief I do not know, but their philosophies were the same at that point of our history. I didn't want to discuss the topic of the movie, but since you use one of their points as justification to present this movie in a more negative light, I felt the need to expand on your comments a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not whitewash the movie. And NPOV requires that we do not. That is all. We do not attack the film. We present positive and negative reviews. We let the producers have their say and present their ideas, in great detail, in the article. However, it is all lies and nonsense, but we let them spew their vile hatred. --Filll (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a pure vile obscenity, mainly because in American culture Atheists and Scientists are somewhat powerless. But it is sick. Really sick. From the same people that brought you slavery. And the Inquisition. And the Crusades. And the Pogroms. And yes, the Holocaust (read On The Jews and Their Lies which was the real motivation behind Mein Kampf). And now want to bring back stoning. Essentially, a Christian Taliban. People who are currently behind torture. People who preach that homosexuals should be executed. Real nice. On and on and on and on. If Jesus was walking the earth today, they would be first in line to attack him. Horrible awful people.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, Filll. This talk page is about improving the article, not to criticize the historic Christian church. I am amazed how you can equate the makers of the film with crimes committed centuries ago - and then even extrapolating to what will be their next actions.Northfox (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think the filmmakers are blaming atheists for the Holocaust. They are simply talking about ideas that they believe led to the Holocaust. And please do not blame Christians for the Holocaust. That's kind of like blaming atheists for the Holocaust, is it not? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Obscenely wrong ideas. It really is shameful. You do not think that the SS officers were mostly good Christians (or presented themselves as such)? You do not think Martin Luther was not a good Christian (or presented himself as such)? I do not blame the Jews for the Holocaust. Or the Buddhists. Or Atheists. Or Hindus. Or Muslims. So... Look when someone produces a piece of vile nonsense like this, it is going to offend. So take a good look at it, because it is offensive.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the SS were good Christians. Whether they said they were such is a different matter. Even if they did, they certainly gave away that they weren't by their actions. I believe Luther was Christian. However, I also don't think he advocated the wholesale slaughter of Jews. The Expelled film does not say that atheists and evolutionists advocate the murder of Jews either. It does present the idea that the concepts of evolution led to the Holocaust (even though Darwin and the other early evolutionists did not necessarily desire it). The concept that the survival of the fittest is the law of human advancement naturally leads to the conclusion that one group of people could commit genocide against a group they feel is inferior. This idea is very wrong, as you and I agree. I believe the film points out this connection, though. I'm looking forward to seeing the film in a few weeks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but the SS were church-going. In a rapidly secularising society their embrace of the church and church weddings was seen as positive. Luther did call for the destruction of Jewish homes, synagogues and their religious books, and for the confiscation of their property their expulsion. He wrote "we are at fault in not slaying them" which condones and excuses their murder. All of our actions fall short of being "true" Christians. The SS were Christians. Gerhard :Kittel's work is still a standard reference in seminaries.

"The concept that the survival of the fittest is the law of human advancement naturally leads to the conclusion that one group of people could commit genocide against a group they feel is inferior". The concept of genocide is as old as humanity and is actually called for in the Bible. Killing the "inferior" isn't an idea that post-dates Darwin. People consciously practised that behaviour since at least the beginning of agriculture. If anything, you should draw the opposite conclusion from Darwin - that contrary to what Malthus said about being overrun by "inferiors", that nature would select what's "superior". Anyone who sees a justification for genocide in evolutionary biology is getting the fundamental ideas of evolutionary biology completely wrong. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire article on this topic - Nazism and religion. While Roman catholicism was the official religion of Nazi Germany, the Nazis embraced a highly distorted state-run version of Catholocism essentially purged of all elements that could divide loyalties from the party. Moreover, they tended to dabble in paganism and the occult, the SS in particular. Raul654 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was referred to as the Messiah by his followers. He was the epitome of the Antichrist in that he claimed the role of Messiah but acted in the opposite. Hitler embodied the opposite of the church Christ set up when he walked this earth. Satanists today quote scripture as part of their chants replacing Christ with their messiah, Satan. They enter churches to seek and destroy. The point of all this is anyone can claim to be a christian, anyone can enter through the doors of a church, even SS officers. Does this mean they are "christians?" It is what is in one's heart that will determine their allegiance and ultimately their eternal destiny. SargonXii (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Until I ran into this article, I have always been an ardent supporter of Wikipedia. It was not that long ago that Wikipedia was making negative headlines for allowing laymen to edit entries on specific subjects. To me that seemed to be a good concept to get away from the mainstream cookie cutter journalists that dominate our sources of information.

But this particular entry is written in the same way the standard mainstream media would write on it. It is full of subtle bias by word use and seems to generate a warning against the content of the film to the unsuspecting reader far more than presenting an overview of the film itself. And for those that suggest as I do, we are responded to here with the same hostility our adversaries purport exists in the movie. Even a simple suggestion to change the words "claim" to "suggests" or "investigates" is met with some hostility. Normally, it is only the trained journalistic mind that would respond so negatively to such minor changes.

Anyways, my only point in commenting here is to remove the subtle bias found in the opening paragraph of this entry. Wikipedia has no obligation to remain objective, that has been stated and I accept. The problem is the average reader will assume objectivity exists here and whether Wikipedia wants it or not, they now have a responsibility to behave as such because the internet world relies heavily on the information found on this site. We know Expelled is biased, its obvious, so we are able to take it with a grain of salt as we should. The general public does not know that Wikipedia is biased, and that to me is propaganda at its worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) SargonXii (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that bit of sophistry is not good enough to get us to change our LEAD which (1) is the product of consensus (2) is at least written in English, compared to your suggestion (3) follows LEAD and NPOV (4) is properly sourced.--Filll (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

SargonXii: to suggest that using adjectives such as "suggest" and ""investigate" to characterise Expelled is "objective" is ludicrous. They did not "investigate" anything, they have simply regurgitated claims that the DI and other creationists have been making for years (and which have long since been debunked as exaggerations, misrepresentations, or outright falsehoods), and likewise they don't "suggest" a link between evolution and the Holocaust, they proclaim it at every opportunity:

In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

so, shall we just redirect this article to reductio ad Hitlerum until there is actually anything to report? dab (𒁳) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is good to know there are so many experts here who have seen the film and took part in the production to know the "true" motive of the film. For those who are relying on the testimony of others, both of those who would have a natural bias to approve or disapprove the film, you should reserve your comments here until you/we have seen the film yourself. As it is now, this entry only serves to discourage the middle folks from viewing the film (middle = those that might be swayed by its point of view). Those on the left, pagans etc, will most likely hate this film and its premise because it goes against their worldview and those on the right, religious folks etc., will praise it for supporting the idea of a Creator. But the middle folks, they are the battle ground

Macro evolution is theory based on the principle that something can come from nothing. It's god is time and chance yet it is taught as fact. I would be more apt to believe there is a superior life form out there that planted us here than that we came from nothing. But the editors here disagree with me and it is reflected in the bias within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SargonXii (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly displayed your faith based ignorance of evolution, do please study that subject with an open mind. Those who value verifiable truth, including most Christians, dislike the lies and misinformation clearly shown in the publicity for this film and in the accounts of its content. Of course all views published verifiably in a reliable source are welcome in this article – we don't practice the sort of censorship or exclusion of opponents that the promoters of this film think is appropriate for their preliminary screenings. .. dave souza, talk 12:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

People presented in the film

In the "People presented in the film" section, when listing the pro-intelligent design scientists, it attacks their creditability in several cases. For example, the article talks about the Sternberg peer review controversy, which, as I have just read, does have to deal with the movie. However, it is bias in the way it presents the facts-- in fact, it is clearly an attack (and has another point of view, backed by facts, not printed in the article). When listing the pro-evolution scientist, no such attack is found.

My suggestion is, in interest of neutrality, that the attacks on the pro-intelligent design scientists be removed. Or, if you feel they are necessary, you should also list controversies about Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and PZ Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.204.220 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A major part of the film is about the "controversies" involving the pro-ID people, describing the incidents they were involved in and claiming that the fact that several were not promoted subsequently was "persecution". The account in the film and as presented by its supporters is a primary source, and we have to base our description of the incidents on reliable third party sources to meet the requirements of verifiability and no original research policies, balancing the various viewpoints about the incidents in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. The film includes interviews with scientists and philosophers about their views on the relationship of science and religion, edited and set in a context to distort their statements in a way that supports the film's claim that "Big Science" is cruel to creationists. Nothing there about "controversies" about these people, if indeed there are any controversies about them. For us to cover any alleged controversies, we'd need a reliable third party source discussing the issues in relation to the film. Got such a source? ... dave souza, talk 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are a few controversies of this type that these people have commented on. Either the ones presented in the film, which they said were complete trash. Or 3 or 4 instances of people who supported evolution, and were fired or persecuted by others who have an agenda to promote intelligent design. These sorts of controversies are unfortunately the complete opposite of what the producers of the film had in mind. Oops!--Filll (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship revealed, Big Science blamed for terrorism

One thing that can be said about the Expelled website, it's brought to light a shocking example of expulsion and censorship. Another post has revealed how Big Science created the conditions for what's probably the worst ever act of terrorism – "Blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11."comment 186 by Boris . . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're being sarcastic, however this page is for discussing improvements to the "Expelled" article, not for personal commentary on other matters. Thank you. -- HiEv 09:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's actually a third party commentary on Expelled by James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis, blogged on his website as "Exploring Our Matrix: Ironically NOT Expelled From Expelled". Retrieved 2008-04-03.. He's mentioned it again here, in a further post about a new Freedom Friday publicity campaign for the launch of Expelled announced by a promotional e-mail which apparently suggests renting a theater for a local showing. Much to his amusement. I've some doubts about the notability of all this, but others may wish to discuss on this talk page whether these points should appear in the article. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is probably too obscure for this article, unless someone else picks up on it. However, it is interesting how this sort of thing resonates with people. It really makes you realize how Hitler worked his magic over people; he gave them simple answers to complicated questions, that they were already predisposed to believe. Economy bad? Jews fault. Jews bad. Christians good. Kill the Jews!

Holocaust bad? Darwin's fault. Let's get rid of evolution to get rid of everything bad like pornography and abortion and divorce and wars and unemployment and hangnails.

Muslims poor? Muslims thought to be violent? West's fault. Let's riot and kill to prove we are not violent!

Failing your courses? Studying is hard? It is because God has decided that studying and knowledge is bad. Brains bad. Stupid good. Yaaaaah!

Let's face it; the average person is completely stupid. And wants easy answers to problems. And is easily manipulated. --Filll (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Teen pregnancy rising? STDs rising? Public education suffering? Christianity's fault. Christianity bad!

Everyone wants simple answers for their problems. Dolewhite (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

STDs and teen pregnancy and bad public education are not blamed on Christianity by anyone notable are they? Any textbooks written for use in public schools that promote this? This just sounds just like more defensiveness; "oh us poor Christians the world is against us, we have to fight back" !! blah blah blah. What nonsense...Sign your kids up at Jesus Camp why don't you?--Filll (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wiki page on the subject and tell me what you think. As for Jesus Camp, I have no children, and I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist. I truly do believe with everything you had written above, but noticed a pointed bias to what you choose to notice. There's a great big culture war raging among two fringes of society, and most people in the middle--like me--don't care for the blame game. I do, however, have a great big stake in intellectual honesty. Dolewhite (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for that. But as near as I can tell, it is basically irrelevant for this article.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I'll try to stay on topic and limit my discourse to Muslims blaming the West and advice to send kids to Jesus Camp in the future. That should help this page remain on topic.

Cheers. Dolewhite (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm detecting a distinctly unproductive turn in this thread, and would recommend that we all back away slowly in accordance with the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to point the obvious, James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, is a Christian. Not all Christians share Stein's views, indeed it seems to be a minority that subscribe to what the Archbishop of Canterbury called a kind of "category mistake", ID. The fact that there's a Christian viewpoint that doesn't take the allegations in the film seriously could be worthy of note, but in my opinion it's borderline and the article's pretty large already. ... dave souza, talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, your "send your kids to Jesus camp" comments are unnecessary. You are showing an obvious bias against Christians and your comments show true hatred. I'm not going to lecture you on how hatred or bigotry is wrong, I'm just going to ask you to be careful what you say. I mean, saying that God hates knowledge, calm down man. The talk page is not a place to spew hatred. For the record, Stein is Jewish; and even though Christian and Jewish world views are rather similar, its worth noting. Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The film does not blame "big science" for terrorism. The commentary you quoted said that blaming darwinism for the holocaust is like blaming darwinism for 9/11. It has nothing to do with the film and is therefore irrelevant. Putting it in the article would further a bias that's already there. Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another 'Victim of Big Science'

Ben Stein Watch, Expelled Edition discusses another of Expelled's supposed 'victims': journalist Pamela Winnick. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment there about how Winnick's purported objectivity was belied in the original description of her Phillips Foundation fellowship. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another legislative showing of Expelled

Ben Stein talks Intelligent Design at the Capitol

This time in Missouri in support of an "intellectual diversity" bill. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of press coverage of Ben Stein's Missouri appearance. For example, look at this speech he gave before the movie: [17]. He claimed that the big fault of Darwinism is that bird beaks do not explain where gravity comes from. He also appeared at an amazing press conference afterwords [18].--Filll (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should put him in contact with our friend Nukeh, who is claiming here that us 'feelthy Darwinists' (am I spelling a bad Spanish accent correctly?) "would expunge the physics of time from education in order to promote Darwin." ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Recent edits

Regarding the recent edits between Dave Souza and Freedomfighter, [19], I think Freedomfighter's version might be better. Freedom thinks it should be "declared false," while Souza thinks it should be "explicitly refuted." The problem is that "explicitly refuted" suggests absolute authority. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "explicitly refuted" implies "absolute authority". It does imply that the topic was was broached and the claim made was found to be false. "declared false" is misleading because it does not convey the fact that evidence, or, rather, the lack of any presented by IDC advocates Behe and Minnich and explicit testimony from Behe that none such existed, was considered and weighed in this issue. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Declared" implies a (relatively arbitrary) fiat decision. "Refuted" implies reasoned discourse, such as Jones' that ID's claims to a "positive case" were disproved by Minnich's and Behe's sworn admissions to the contrary. "Refuted" implies logic not "authority". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer refuted to declared for several reasons. Declared sounds like it was capricious and just some sort of whim of some fallible court, and based on no evidence, or a clear misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence. "Declared" has the air of spurious authority, and sounds like the ruling was the transient fancy of someone mistakenly put on the bench, someone who did not recognize The Truth^TM when he saw it, someone who is "legislating from the bench". It confers an air of righteousness to all those "Good Christians" who threatened to kill the judge and his family after the trial, since they are all such good people and follow the Word of God so closely.

Refuted is far closer to what really happened. The intelligent design people brought their most serious legal team to bear on the problem. Their heavy hitters. The Discovery Institute trotted out their best evidence and testimony. And guess what? This evidence and testimony was clearly complete crap, in the eyes of the court, and in the public media. Absolute nonsense. Ever hear the phrase "breathtaking inanity"? Well there is a reason the judge used that phrase. The good conservative republican regular church-going judge. The good Christian judge. He looked at the evidence. And realized it was just nonsense. So...refuted sounds a bit closer to what happened, instead of some ignorant atheistic left wing activist judge just deciding he hated Christians and goodness and truth and the family and family values and attacking the moral foundation of our country, and just making up some silly excuse for ruling the way he did.

In other words, I refute your arguments for using "declared" instead of "refuted".--Filll (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FF raised the question on my talk page, and my response was –

"Read Kitzmiller. It's an explicit point by point refutation of ID claims, not a vague declaration that their claims are "false". Note well that other editors disagree with your view, feel free to take it up on the article talk page, but you'll need consensus to make the change you propose."

dave souza, talk 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion or Inclusion

Consider this edit. It seems to me that User:Brain Rodeo was correct in making this change. But it was reverted by User:Dave souza, restored by yours truly, and reverted again by User:Hrafn. Hrafn stated: "'religious doctrines' have no legitimate place in 'science classes' -- so it is an 'intrusion', not an 'inclusion'"

I think that using "intrusion" violates POV. We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class (even if this court or that court has said so) and tailor our wording to reflect that belief. We are just supposed to state the facts. Those people who are being described are opposed to the inclusion of ID in science classes. That is the fact. There is considerable disagreement as to whether or not such inclusion would in fact be an inclusion.

Please reply here if you agree or disagree. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class" or whether ID is religion-based or not. While I do not think this is in serious dispute, it is still being contested by the promoters of ID and others. Gralgrathor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, care to explain what "I think that using "intrusion" violates POV" means? And how the word intrusion violates it? Since there are about 20 or more court rulings stating this, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and science classes are for science, and teaching other things in science classes is an intrusion, I do not understand what the problem is.

I will point out that we are not deciding what belongs or doe not belong. We are just reporting what the courts have ruled and the science community has stated. The law of the land. And the consensus of the science community. Period.

Now, I am uncertain about which word to use from a linguistic perspective. However, there is no problem with using the word intrusion if we are just worried about accuracy and exposition.--Filll (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite what are biases are I think inclusion does sound less POV. I mean, is it really that different and the changing of it would appease some of the more radical editors and save us from a long argument. Saksjn (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is sloppy language and reasoning used, like "less POV", this discussion starts to lose any meaning whatsoever.--Filll (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'inclusion' is "less POV" than 'intrusion' because intrusion has very negative meanings that inclusion does not. We could say Judge X said this was an intrusion into the classroom but wikipedia should avoid strong language like that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If its my language you are talking about, please point out the mistakes. I am willing to learn and want to be given advice. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note well that the sentence in question explicitly shows the views of those opposed to teaching of religion in science classes – "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes." The change to the mealy-mouthed "inclusion" casts their view in the terms preferred by the minority who oppose the US constitutional separation of church and state, and so violates NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, there is the issue of context: these scientists would themselves see it as an intrusion, therefore this form accurately reflects the nature of their objection. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The article currently says: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).

Some people evidently want to replace the word "intrusion" with the word "inclusion". I would disagree. There's no reason why Wikipedia cannot say that those scientists view it as an "intrusion". On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that Wikipedia views it as an intrusion, lest we violate the NPOV principle. So, I would suggest rewriting the sentence like so: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also the view of Edwards v. Aguillard, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, & McLean v. Arkansas. In fact it would be difficult to find a credible authority that didn't consider it to be an "intrusion" (and no dissenting credible authority has been cited). Therefore stating that it is only viewed by "scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution" as an intrusion is not to give it its WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The language I suggested did not say or imply that "only" the interviewed scientists view those doctrines as an intrusion. As the article stands right now, Wikipedia is taking the position that those doctrines are an intrusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting into a revert war. This comment My most recent edit will be my last edit today at this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia should not take the position that these doctrines are an intrusion or are not an intrusion. If someone wants to edit this article to say that various court decisions have viewed them as an intrusion, then that would be fine. That is not the same thing as Wikipedia taking a position on the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your enthusiassm for giving equal validity to the minority viewpoint, your proposal gives undue weight to the minority position and misrepresents the clear majority view in science and amongst science educators as well as the established legal position. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So should wikipedia also carefully avoid stating that a burglar breaking into a home is an "intrusion"? The basis for that "position" is the same as for the statement under debate -- strong legal precedent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We can weasel word things a lot, but at some point the writing becomes tortured and hard to read. When there have been something like 15 major court decisions saying it is an intrusion, including a couple of supreme court decisions, and many many dozens of minor court decisions saying it is an intrusion, and well in excess of 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields in favor of teaching only evolution in science classes, and every major scientific and educational body stating the same thing, as well as all the major religious organizations in the US (covering over 80% of all Americans) then it is pretty overwhelming that it is an intrusion. The only groups that are in favor of putting intelligent design in the classroom are (1) a tiny fraction of religious fundamentalists and other extremists, somewhat like a Christian version of the Taliban; an extreme minority among Christians worldwide (way less than 5%) (2) a large fraction of the US public that have been confused about the issue by propaganda; most members of the US public could not pick the definition of "evolution" out of a multiple choice list (as shown repeatedly in surveys) (3) a few politicians who pander to this faction of the public for votes (4) assorted religious leaders like Ken Ham who make money (over 200,000 dollar a year salary, last I checked) from spewing lies and other nonsense, or Discovery Institute fellows who are paid an extra 30, 40 or 50 thousand dollars a year to publish unscientific drivel.

So all in all, intrusion does not sound so bad and so unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing weaselly about striking through these three words: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."[20] This strikethrough was reverted, and the effect of the reversion is to insist that Wikipedia take a position, and abandon NPOV. There is not the slightest problem of undue weight if those words are struck out. Nor is there any problem of undue weight if instead the words "what they view as" are inserted.[21]

It is very clear that some editors here wish to rely on several court decisions to justify Wikipedia taking the same positions as those courts. That is a blatant POV violation. Reporting in this article what those courts said would be fine, but adopting it as the Wikipedia position is not fine.

Additionally, if you want to discuss what courts have said, not a single court in the United States has said that those doctrines are an intrusion in any science course at a private school. All of the court decisions have been about public schools. So, you're not only violating NPOV principles, but are using false arguments to try to justify it.

Personally, I don't think religious doctrines or pseudoscience belong in science classes at private school or public school, but that is my personal opinion, and I would not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance that personal opinion of mine (as you folks are doing).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you do seem to be using this talk page to advocate a rather liberal concern to pander to the minority view at the expense of clearly showing the overwhelming majority view as required by NPOV policy. Nuff said. .. dave souza, talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously against Wikipedia policy to portray a majority view as the correct and only view, and to furthermore adopt it as the Wikipedia view. You are free to say what the majority view is and what the minority view is in this article, but it is not Wikipedia's business to take sides. And if you ever do decide to conform this article to NPOV, you might also mention that courts in the United States are unanimous that mentioning creationism and the like in science courses is not an intrusion, except at public schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit on the matter, with reasoning being in my edit summary. I have never before edited or even looked at this article before today, and I think that the theory of intelligent design is complete and utter nonsense, so I can hardly be described as POV pushing. Restepc (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ferrylodge, the courts in the United States have consistently ruled that these are not science. It therefore follows that teaching non-science in science classes would be an "intrusion" in any school, not just a public school: it's just that the church/state angle doesn't cover private schools, which are actually free to teach anything (creationism, skateboarding, hip-hop, wrestling...) in "science" classes. But I think Restepc's edit does the job: it keeps "intrusion" and attributes it to those who care. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edit by Restepc, and also with everything that Restepc said in his comment, with a few caveats. It does seem like the basic laws of physics emanated from an intelligent design, and lots of eminent scientists have said so, from Newton to Einstein. So, it's not completely outlandish to suppose that scientists in the future might find some intelligent design at work in conjunction with the evolutionary process of natural selection --- but that hasn't happened yet. And don't forget that choosing your mate does involve some intelligent design: would you choose a mate who would cause your offspring to be hideous? I think not.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

current edit war

I'm really tempted to get involved in the current edit war, but I'm not going to. I'm going to ask every one else to do the same and finish discussing it here before we start edit war this thing to mush. Saksjn (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit war untile the conservative blogger /pov tag team showed up. There's a COI violation in there somewhere I bet. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein would have liked Darwin to just keep quiet

I am not about to try to edit this Wikipedia entry, but I'd like to bring up something that might be worth including. Ben Stein basically saying that Darwin should have just shut up:

"5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein answers]" "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?" "

So much for their concern about freedom, academic or otherwise. If Stein could have persuaded him not to publish science, that's what he'd have done.

I am not sure where this might go in the entry. Obviously it could serve as a counterexample to any of their claims to be promoting "academic freedom," but that's up to those who know more about editing.

Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting link, Stein certainly makes some bizarre statements, such as "If you’re taught something, and asked to take it on faith, in your science class, then you should say, “Sir, you’re asking me to take it on faith. And if we’re talking about things that are taken on faith, then could we also talk about Intelligent Design, which is my faith?” Yup, that argument's really going to help next time there's a court case about pushing religion into science classes. However, my feeling is that it's a primary source in terms of WP: no original research and we really need a published reliable secondary source verifiably making the assessment of Stein's statements. . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that little interview snippet, but I would prefer to wait until after the interview with Dobson air to incorporate them both into this article. --Filll (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

School Field Trips

I have at least one field trip to report. My school is going to watch the movie next Friday. Do we have any other trips that have been reported? Saksjn (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - You're a minor, and while that doesn't mean we don't respect you as an editor, you should probably be careful about revealing too much information about yourself in relation to this discussion. But do tell us what you think of it - your memories and opinions may not reach the level of verifiable, reliable source, but that doesn't make us not interested in them, and they might be useful for letting us know whether we got the balance right. Optionally [if you want to], take a notebook with you (if possible) and jot down notes on what's covered, the order in which things are covered, in which interviewees are introduced, and so on - that would be extremely useful for knowing how to organise the article =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What type of school is this? A private religious school? If it's a state school, that has constitutional implications. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Saksjn does your school have an online student news site? If so send us a link to any articles they might publish about this event. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have an online news site, but the school website might have something on it. I know the school post a school newsletter up, but it mostly just talks about sports and the elementary school. We are a private school, which changes things a lot. I probably should have said that when I posted this. I did mention we were a private school in a different thread, but it should have been re-stated. Thanks for the notebook idea Shoemaker; that's a really good idea. I don't think that mentioning a field trip is revealing to much information, since you guys don't know what school I go to. I'll try to outline when people come in and when different topics are covered. After that we could all have a better idea of what is exactly in the film. Thanks for the idea and I'll try to put my notes in an electronic form at some point so I can post them on here. That way we can all see them. Saksjn (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, just saying you're going on a field trip is probably harmless enough, but, you know, if your school is small, it might start to get too easy to identify you if you start to reveal specific details. And, you know, better to mention it now before you start telling us about the trip itself, which, as a travelogue, offers a lot of chance for revealing personal information. =) Also, be careful about linking the newsletter [or don't do it at all] if the school is fairly small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

)

External Links

"MichaelWebber" has twice removed the "Expelled Exposed" site from the "External Links" section, leaving only links to "Expelled" promotional sites.

I think that there is a legitimate need for inclusion of the critical reviews. "Expelled Exposed" links all of those, and will keep the "External Links" section compact. Otherwise, there should be links included to a number of the published critical reviews.

Does "MichaelWebber" have some Wikipedia-relevant reason that "Expelled Exposed" should not be linked?--Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been "washing" some link at Ben Stein too. Angry Christian (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the links, its only fair to have both pro- and con- links. Saksjn (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn is right, NPOV is reached by having all POV's represented. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Four publicity/marketing firms!

[22] is a nice little article.--Filll (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shermer podcast on film

See here. He has a different view than others. Thinks it is well made film and will delight its target audience, and accomplish its goals, as long as they can get people in the seats. Unfortunately, just an audio file so I do not know if we can use it as easily, although I would use it as a source. Comments?--Filll (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there no reason we cannot cite an audio file. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or just use the Shermer article in Scientific American Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin The fact Shermer is a former "born-again christian" who rejected evolution in favor of creationism makes his commentary very interesting. I don't have time to add much to the article right now but there's a ton of quality information. Angry Christian (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation 32 needs attention

[Evoloution is]......"a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs.[32]". The cited piece references no scientific observations or data and indeed misrepresents evolution as: "...a scientific fact to be known." Any citation in support of observed adaptive mutation (itself controversial) must contain actual information.63.230.77.249 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. That is readily available elsewhere. The reference summarizes the scientific view, and specifically mentions the movie. Meanwhile the article itself already links to Evolution in the lead. And how is stating the scientifically-accepted "factual" status of evolution "misrepresenting" it? This topic is not "controversial" (among scientists): as other citations in the article (and related articles) make clear. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is saying that it needs to be cited, not arguing about whether it's true. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the relevant portion of the article says: "...to lend plausibility to the argument that evolution is a matter of faith, rather than a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs". And here is (some of) what the supporting citation says: "As a natural phenomenon based on scientific evidence, evolution is not a matter of belief or faith, any more than gravity or genetics... ...Stating it that way would acknowledge the fact of evolution and show that those who refuse to accept it are denying established evidence and proof... ...Thus the theory of evolution aims to make logical and rational sense of the facts of evolution, proposing mechanisms to explain how evolution occurs. Those who attack evolution as merely a “theory” misunderstand what a scientific theory is.". It is therefore pretty clear that the authors of the reference are supporting the claim that evolution is a valid scientific theory which explains a large body of actual facts (and they are also saying that ID misrepresents this, and they are criticising the film on this basis). Thus, the reference supports the text of the article. Anyone who actually doubts that the facts of evolution exist, or doubts that those facts support evolution, can go to the appropriate articles instead (or actually enrol at a university and study the evidence firsthand if they're still not convinced). Meanwhile we reflect what notable authorities (in this case, two university professors) are saying. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So when does a theory become of "fact." When scientist decide that it's convenient to have it as a fact. As far as I know, the only "facts" in science are laws; such as the law of gravity. Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, evolution is a fact and a theory: the fact is that creatures evolve, the theory explains how. Thus, the facts are the raw data that supports the theory: in this case, changes in populations of organisms over time (which, for short-lived organisms, can be observed in the laboratory). However, the "theory" of evolution is also "fact" in a more colloquial sense, as in "very well supported" and "generally accepted by the relevant experts": like saying that the historical existence of Napoleon is "fact". It's also pretty close to a natural law, as it's a seemingly inevitable consequence of the existence of mutation and natural selection: it will happen unless something stops it from happening. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clear this up. Laws are really not that important in science; they are just sort of general rules of thumb that have been observed (and can be broken or violated anyway). What are most important are data, also known as scientific facts, and theories, which are the explanations for these data (facts).

So in evolutionary biology, what are the facts? Well there are literally hundreds of millions of them, if not more. For example:

• observations of where a dinosaur bone was dug up, and what shape it was
• genetic markers in human DNA showing the results of endogenous retroviruses
• the observation that humans and other primates have opposable thumbs
• the fraction of people in the population that are colorblind
• observation of a teleomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2
• observation that the species of plants on different sides of the Great Wall of China are different
• discovery of nylon eating organisms
• laboratory observations of fruit fly population changes over time
• observation of the species of mosquitos that live only in the London Underground

These are all data. These are all "scientific facts". They come from observations or measurements or are the results of experiments. They are very hard to argue with since they have been verified to exist, over and over.

The definition of evolution as "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" can come into play here. Some of these observations are direct observations of a "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time". So that is why people say "evolution is a fact". Because according to that definition, some of these data, or observations, are "evolution". And therefore, it is reasonable to say "evolution is a fact" according to the scientific definition.

Now what does "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" really mean? Suppose you took all the adults in your neighborhood and found out that 33% had blue eyes and 67% had brown eyes. Then suppose you took all the kids in your neighborhood and found out that 23% had blue eyes and 77% had brown eyes. Wow, the next generation has fewer blue eyes! Blue eyes are one allele, and brown eyes are another. And we have a change of the distribution of alleles in a population (people in your neighborhood) over time. So this IS evolution, by definition. The fact that there are fewer kids with blue eyes than among the adults is a "fact". And it is evolution.

Now what is the "theory of evolution"? A theory of evolution is an explanation for these "facts". There have been many explanations advanced. All of these explanations are called the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory was a very important "theory of evolution". And today, when people say the "theory of evolution" it is an explanation that is not quite Darwin's explanation, but it is related to Darwin's explanation. --Filll (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Adaptive Mutation" is a fact (observed and accepted in NON-evolutionary biology). "Adaptive Mutation" is also a part of "SOME" very specific, developing and controversial hypotheses that contradict mainstream theories of evolution in regards to the randomness of mutations. Please reconsider describing evolution as "a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs". Adaptive mutation is a unique, specific, non-random form of mutation that is not an accepted part of modern evolutionary theory. Reference: "Adaptive Mutation of a lacZ Amber Allele-Patricia L. Foster and John Cairns" - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/3/1329 63.230.77.249 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...Ah. Maybe we were "talking past each other" there. I suspect the author of that section of the article meant something different by the phrase "adaptive mutation". Mutations can help an organism adapt to environmental conditions, but the phrase adaptive mutation also describes the more controversial view that some mutations may be non-random. However, current thinking is that while some parts of the genome are more mutation-prone than others, and microbes (at least) may be able to vary their overall mutation rates in response to changing conditions (though this could be something as mundane as preferential selection of "mutation-prone" individuals when a beneficial mutation has occurred in one), there isn't any evidence that the mutations themselves are "guided". But this is still "evolution". Perhaps the word "beneficial" should be substituted for "adaptive". --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a slight aside, science is full of random things or things with random causes. All of quantum mechanics is random; things like the color of your street lamps are determined "randomly". Ever hear the Einstein phrase "God does not play dice with the universe"? That is what Einstein was talking about. So he set out to prove it was wrong. And instead, proved it was right (see Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ). And now the US government is spending literally billions of dollars on projects associated with this; the fact that the universe is intrinsically "random".

All of thermodynamics? Random stuff is involved. All of hydrodynamics? Random stuff is involved. Quality control? Random stuff is involved. Weather forecasting? Random stuff is involved (ever hear "50% chance of rain"?). Brownian motion? Random stuff is involved. Radioactivity? Random stuff is involved. There is just stochasticity throughout science. And huffing and puffing about it being against God or something is sort of silly.

So is there randomness throughout the natural world. All our mainstream accepted theories rely on it, or at least have for well over 100 years. Lots of our technology depends on this. So, if there is randomness in biology too, is that somehow evil and atheistic? Come on be serious here...--Filll (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is still not a fact. Science says that a fact must be observable, and we have not observed the evolution of a species. Don't say that the fossil record is evidence because we still have not found a "missing link" anywhere. Saksjn (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of species has been observed. And there have been several transitional species that have been discovered, if that's what you mean by "missing link." See Speciation. All of the facts of evolution are available right here at the press of a wikilink.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled for plagiarism

See this letter from XVIVO (whose cell animation IDers have been using without permission for some time, which Expelled uses a very thinly disguised re-rendering of). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Any news of them actually acting on the demands. If the segment is still in the film on the 18'th, it could cause an interesting problem. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching news since last night (google news) and I see no mention of it yet. I am not sure what might happen. Will they just ignore this as legal puffery and go ahead? Will they hope that this is just more good publicity? Will they reschedule? Will they just cut it out of the movie? Cutting it out and redistributing the film would be very expensive. A lawsuit could be even more expensive, both in money and prestige. --Filll (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could they really survive the skeletons that discovery would reveal in their closets? There's been a good deal of skullduggery that they've already been accused of that would be documented in their own words if this came to court, let alone stuff that hasn't made the light of day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the legal letter was sent at the last minute on purpose to cause disruption. However, PZ Myers only got a copy of the CD/DVD containing the movie's video animation when he was expelled from the theatre in late March. PZ then analyzed it and presented the results on his blog. So a couple weeks later or so, the legal letter was sent. However, it is so last minute that it will cause huge embarassment if they have to reschedule again. And it will be expensive to reshoot that part of the movie. And cause another huge delay (remember they wanted to release it on February 12, Darwin Day, originally). It will be interesting to see how they play this. Both the original Harvard video and the version in the movie contain the same errors and omissions, which is usually used by courts to enforce copyright. --Filll (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are diabolically clever, they will have a noncopyright violating version already in the finished film, and only in the preview versions did they show the copyright violation, hoping that they would be called out on it. And this would give them extra publicity.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely -- according to The Inner Life of the Cell the original took "14 months to create for 8.5 minutes of animation" -- by some top professionals that actually knew what they were doing. Can you really see the Premise boys being capable of doing a valid clean room reproduction that would stand legal scrutiny, even assuming they had the time and equipment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Northfox inserted the following in the article:

On their website, Expelled producers deny any wrongdoing and say that "Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film."

What the Expelled blog actually states is:[23]

Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.

The problem is they're not being aaccused of using the XVIVO animation, but a thinly disguised copy (technically a derivative work), as that they "created" it 'clean room' from scratch is highly unlikely. So it is not clear that the 'denial' actually means anything -- which is why I have reverted it until further discussion can be had on its meaning and significance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just was going to post the same thing. It appears that they will go ahead with the screening and take their chances with a potential lawsuit. I think we should include this, but I am not sure how and where. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'denial' is short enough that it could be quoted verbatim. This would eliminate any accusation of WP:SYN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Bolinsky of XVIVO has given more details in this email, posted with his permission on Richard Dawkin's site. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is the title of this section "Expelled for plagiarism" rather than say "Allegations of copyright infringement" or "XVIVO copyright infringement allegations"? The current title is kind of theatrical and not terribly accurate. Plagiarism appears mild, vague, and does not convey the legal issues.24.69.23.142 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American reviews

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As the scheduled release gets closer, we are getting more and more material. Of course, given the most recent news, I am not sure that we will actually see the movie released on time.--Filll (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at google news shows all kinds of articles of various kinds. Here is a fun one: Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release--Filll (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American had a conversation with Mathis after viewing the film to review it. MP3s (first & second parts) are available. Chris Heard, associate professor of Religion at Pepperdine University makes use of it (and provides extensive transcripts) in a blog post here asking the question: "Why Ken Miller isn’t in Expelled". The PT discusses this issue further here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clips from the movie

here is Dembski and here is Berlinski and Schroeder etc. Lots of images of the plagiarized video material as well. Watch now before it disappears!--Filll (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee endorses the film

see here--Filll (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really useful here except the fact that a presidential candidate (dropped out) has endorsed it. I'll check to see if there is any info on the endorsement already in the article. If there isn't, I'll add some. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the family interview

here. This is amazing Stein talks about the organic cell and the "inorganic cell". Huh?--Filll (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the beauty of intelligent design. You don't have to know anything about biology or science to be a "design theorist". Angry Christian (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the broadcast, they offer to send you the Expelled Leaders Guide and a DVD, free. I might want to see those, but I am a bit nervous about being on a weird mailing list.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Expelled Leaders Guide is an amazing piece of glossy and flashy propaganda. Take a look here.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family is not an ID expert. They have no scientist working for them and as far as I know, have not claimed to be an expert on ID. Let not treat thier words like they are experts. Saksjn (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neither is Stein nor Ruloff nor Mathis. In fact, I would include everyone associated with the Discovery Institute in that list as well.--Filll (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly"

In this edit, Mackan79 inserted the word "reportedly." AC reverted him, and I unreverted. Here's the beginning of the sentence:

"Hosted by Ben Stein, it reportedly claims that what the film calls “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and..."

I think the word "reportedly" is good there, because I've not seen documentation that the movie makes that precise claim. I've not seen no statement on the movie promo site that no dissent at all is allowed in Big Science.

The closest I've seen to that is this satirical page about a parody of a school, "Big Science Academy," where there is "no room for dissent" in science classes. But I don't think that is equivalent to saying that every "big science" institution (every university, every gov't research program, etc.) permits no dissent. NCdave (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not that opposed to a few weasel words like "reportedly" but too many and the writing starts to stink. Also, I think if you follow our sources and listen to the interviews and read the interviews and reviews, you will see that "reportedly" is not really that accurate here. --Filll (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article before you start editing it, NCDave. The article clearly states "it claims that what the film calls “Big Science" and does not state every university, every institution, etc. It states what the film calls "Big Science" Please read teh Expelled blog/site/promotional materials if you doubt this. Angry Christian (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave feel free to add ben's quote on big science as an additional ref found here. Angry Christian (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify, the reason I added it was mostly because the movie isn't out, which somewhat raises the question of how Wikipedia knows what is in it. Obviously there have been screenings etc., and Wikipedia is sort of a unique entity, but for instance if the New York Times were writing about a movie none of the writers had been able to see, I think it would have to qualify its reports about what's in it. I think it also insulates WP from looking like it's taking a stance -- the same reason I added the source to the first sentence -- but that was mainly it. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use reportedly you should say who reported it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugh will be disappointed

In the context of claims that "Big Science" crushes dissent;

"In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Rarely do movie trailers provide an accurate picture of the full message a movie conveys . When "EXPELLED" arrives in theaters, our main concern will be whether it seeks to engage the scientific community in the scientific (as opposed to the political or legal) arena, or if it advocates attacking scientists' character. We would hope it's the former."[24]

It'll be interesting to read Hugh Ross's views when he gets a chance to see the film .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Time review

Time (magazine) has a review here.

It comes across as a well-meaning, but not particularly well informed (the reviewer seems unaware of the baselessness of the accusations of persecution, the volumes of detailed scientific criticism of ID positions, or of the number of prominent theistic evolutionists on the pro-evolution side), criticism of the film . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave Expelled

In case any of you haven't heard yet, NCdave has been blocked. The block is due to expire in one week. The edits he made just before being blocked were these: [25] and [26]. If any of you are interested in commenting one the issue, there is a thread at this noticeboard. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good bloody riddance! This means that we don't have to endure his tendentious and disruptive editing for a week. I was getting to the stage of wanting to strangle him whenever he repeated his fallacious Establishment Clause whine yet again. His constant broken-record WP:SOAPboxing added nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Thank you for your thoughts. But be careful. Saying that someone "added nothing worthwhile to the conversation" borders on violating some of the rules. I believe NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read #Administrative action and NCdave & WP:SPADE. I believe that your contention that "NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project" is wholly unsupported by the facts. You were the one who brought up the subject of this thoroughly objectionable editor, so you should not be surprised when we tell you exactly what we think of his behaviour. The vast majority of opinion on WP:AN/I appears to support this view of his behaviour. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that NCdave has caused some problems, but, those edits were not worthy of a block. The second one is an edit that I almost made myself a couple times. Would I or anyone else have been blocked if we made those edits? I understand that he can be disruptive sometimes, but if he's going to get blocked, he should be blocked over something that actually violates the rules. Those edits didn't violate any rules at all. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was most probably for an ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour, not just his last two edits (neither of which were particularly helpful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An enlightening quote -- "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts"[27] -- reason given for blocking NCDave almost three years ago -- it would seem that little has changed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about NCdave's editing, but bringing up something from three years ago as evidence that he hasn't changed seems a bit suspect. Hard to get away from that, I guess? As far as the discussion linked above, I also didn't see anything particularly convincing. I've only watched this from the periphery, but when some editors are calling others worthless contributors, it's not much wonder to me that the discussions have some problems. Mackan79 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts" is exactly the disruptive behaviour that led to his most recent blocking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there another kind? :) I'm just pretty sure I've seen worse, and I question whether getting rid of the perspective helps the article. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that he did little more than repeat the same thing over and over again (and throw tantrums when it was excised as off-topic), I rather doubt if we're losing anything new, particularly as his "perspective" was consistently unpersuasive to the majority of editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79: if you can point to any valuable contribution NCDave has made, I'll concede that my criticism of him was unwarranted. Unless and until that happens, I stand by my comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, he'd probably have to offer that himself. But problems or not, I think it needs to be a little clearer so someone else can actually see what the problems are, which is honestly difficult here. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I would not consider his judgement to be reliable on the matter. And it is you who is defending the value of his contributions, so it is you who needs to substantiate your claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on Mackan79, give it a rest. If you cannot see the evidence of obstruction and tendentious argumentation from NCDave, then you are not looking very hard. He makes the same arguments over and over and over, after they are dismissed. He wants to use the talk page as a SOAPbox on which to lecture us about how his beliefs and only his beliefs are The TRUTH^TM. If you look above, there is instance after instance of similar nonsense out of him. I just gave up discussing things with him since it was clear he was not willing to listen to or engage in a reasonable rational dialogue. This appears to be someone who is unwilling or unable to abide by the principles of Wikipedia.

People, Wikipedia has to abide by NPOV. That does NOT mean neutral or positive. It means that if there are two ideas, A and B, both A and B get presented. A's criticism of B is presented, and B's criticism of A is presented. If A is much more mainstream in the relevant discipline (in this case, academic science) than B is, then more of A will be presented often. Does anyone here doubt what the dominant view in academic Biology departments is of this film and its claims? In spite of that we still include huge amounts of material from the point of view of crazed religious fanatics of various stripes (declaring such things as human reason is bad and we should only follow the bible etc). We include all the claims of the film, albeit with some allusion to the other side (as we are required to by NPOV). We include numerous long detailed discussions of interviews with the producers. Our article has more material in it from the viewpoint of the film than its critics (excluding the footnotes). We are far more "balanced" than an article in the New York Times, or an article published by Answers in Genesis, as we should be.

If someone wants an article that ONLY attacks the film, Wikipedia is not the place for it. If someone wants an article that ONLY praises the film, or presents its claims without the other side, Wikiipedia is not the place for it.

And NCDave does not seem to understand that point. So, after causing a huge amount of disruption, he was blocked to think about it for a while. And, if anyone else wants to try to the same tactics NCDave tried, they might consider what happened to NCDave.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Substantively, of course I agree with you. My question was solely what he did, which I'm still not totally clear about. I also think people should avoid disparaging someone, whether they understand NPOV or not. But, it looks like that's being discussed elsewhere which seems fine with me. Mackan79 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over four days into my seven-day block, after many fruitless requests for the blocking admin (or anyone else) to identify the edits which supposedly violated Wikipedia policies, I've finally been unblocked. NCdave (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New resource, expelled's response to Dawkins at screening incident

Just thought it might be interesting to give expelled's side of the story. Here's an article to read. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We do "give expelled's side of the story" -- particularly how their "side" keeps changing and never seems to match the facts. And what sort of egotistical moron titles a piece "Stein smart bombs Darwin"?

1. Stein is so scientifically illiterate that he couldn't find the Theory of Evolution with a book entitled Evolutionary Biology for Dumbies.
2. Darwin is dead. And his original theory has been modified and improved enormously since his time. "Stein smart bombs Darwin" is about as meaningful as "US defeats Mesopotamia" or "Tenth Armored Division defeats Russian cavalry". Anybody ranting about "Darwin" is almost certainly admitting "I'm a religious fanatic who lives in an 19th century la-la-land where the modern science that has accepted, modified and improved the Theory of Evolution doesn't exist for me".

Oh, and the "astonishing" 'concession' from Dawkins was merely him discussing a hypothetical "what if". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply thought that the dialogue between the producer (just went blank on his name) and Dawkins would be useful. And yes, the title is kinda dumb. Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the article? Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. There is nothing of use in it. In particular, there is no "description of a dialogue with Dawkins, just one sentence, apparently describing the movie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"American Society for Clinical Investigation"

It seems like the section that starts "American Society for Clinical Investigation" is original research. Should we be rebutting the film's arguments with references that have nothing to do with the film? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly properly sourced and attributed, not original research, and it's obviously relevant to the movie since the movie's premise is that academics who support ID are persecuted. Odd nature (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like if this were the ID page, then it would be applicable but isn't this page supposed to be about the movie and not just throwing in refs unrelated to it that disagree. Shouldn't we have to find a ref that disagrees with a statement in terms of the movie, not in terms of the general statement? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the reviews do discuss it, though not in as much detail as the cite quoted. We should probably add a second source next to it, to show that the concept has been connected to the film, but (if I were not 200 miles from home) I'm sure I could find one and do it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this paragraph is that the cited article does not appear to be an opinion of the American Society for Clinical Investigation but rather an article published in their journal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This week's New Scientist mentions (admittedly in less detail) the same point as taken from the ASCI paper in their review of Expelled. I left mine on a train, though. I'll get another tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Variety review: Thumbs down

Although clearly written by someone who is anti-evolution, the Variety review (to come out Monday I guess) is pretty negative.[28]--Filll (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders view of the POV of the article

After reading through it, I find that IMO, apart from some small issues of wording, the article is broadly neutral.

I can well understand why many ID supporters find the article biased, essentially for the same reason the film was made: they feel that ID/the movie is being unfairly treated by the establishment because of the massive amount of criticism, whereas in reality this criticism is well deserved for an absolutely retarded theory/awful film.

The article does appear to very heavily attack the film, but this is because it is reflecting the mass-criticism of the film, and I suspect that it is only said criticism which makes the film particularly notable.

So in brief, I think the page should not be tagged.

There are however, some worrying signs that if it were not for the very strong opposition from ID supporters the page would fast become POV biased....the insistence on the use of the suggestive word 'intrusion' is the most plain one I see, and though I have no plans to get involved in any major edits of this article, I will be watching it to ensure that the clarification 'what they view as' remains, although in reality I would much prefer it was simply changed to inclusion.

I don't suppose this will stop you guys arguing for a second, but thought I'd give my 2p, which with current exchange rates is worth about 4 cents :p Restepc (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Unfortunately, Restepc's necessary and proper edit has been reverted. I would like to directly ask the reverters why they think this Wikipedia policy is not applicable here:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Shouldn't all sides respect this policy?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster define "intrude" as "to thrust or force in or upon someone or something especially without permission, welcome, or fitness". The views in question have been repeatedly "thrust or forced" into classrooms (e.g. by the Dover board) where they are not welcome (e.g. by science teachers) do not have permission (e.g. of the courts, who have ruled against them) and do not (in the opinion of the vast majority of science education experts) have any fitness. If you want to have "intruded" 'qualified' by the long list of those declaring it to be a legal/pedagogical/scientific intrusion, then you're welcome to do it that way, but I do not think that omitting this word makes the statement a more accurate characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the new version could well be an acceptable compromise, although I think perhaps a specific number should be given in place of 'virtually all'...I seem to remember seeing 99.9% given somewhere with a citation....and I think one of those court rulings that been mentioned labelling it an 'intrusion' will do for the [citation needed] request Restepc (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a number of ID advocates have, at various times, admitted that ID is not yet "fit" for the classroom. This was part of the reason for the strategic retreat to the Teach the controversy position -- as it meant that they didn't have to front up with a substantive positive hypothesis of their own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'Virtually all' gives undue weight to the claims of the producers. If 99.9% of scientists support evolution over ID (and there is a source for that) and zero scientific professional societies support ID, any phrasing that implies anything less than a monolithic opposition to ID and support of evolution in the scientific community misrepresents the extant to which ID is shunned and violates the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, there is a source, but it is just a number; actually it is 99.9%. It is neither published in a peer reviewed paper, nor serious research/polls behind it. Here is a quote from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". Northfox (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And we have several other sources that state essentially the same thing. You think that somehow these sources are all incorrect, and maybe secretly there is a huge belief in creationism among biologists and geologists?--Filll (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hovind organization markets Expelled

See here.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is opening in 11 theaters near me on Friday. NCdave (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled, Darwin and Antisemitism

It appears that, whilst making a big song and dance about the spurious link between Darwin and the Holocaust, Stein interviewed a ravingly antisemitic Creationist for Expelled. I had thought that the general idea for these sorts of media forays was to keep your more embarrassing membership under lock & key (figuratively speaking) for the duration -- not parade them centre stage. It's getting difficult to find room for all of their assorted pratfalls and unintentional ironies that this movie has generated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion. Martin Luther's text On the Jews and Their Lies was far more of an inspiration for Mein Kampf than On the Origin of Species. Stalinism with its promotion of the antiDarwin Lysenko and its leadership all trained in Russian Orthodox seminaries (including Stalin and Molotov and those running the Gulag prison system and secret police) had more inspiration from religion than from Darwin. The worst racists in the US like the Klu Klux Klan use the bible as their motivation, not Darwin's work. Creationists like the Baptists and Pentecostals were in the lead to retain slavery and segregation in the US, not abolish these practices like the pro-evolution Quakers and Unitarians. Capitalism is far closer to surival of the fittest than communism is. That is why this movie is a huge load of nonsense.--Filll (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same was true on the eugenics angle -- some of the biggest supporters of the movement during its heyday in the earlier 20th Century (which just happens to also have been the 'eclipse of Darwinism') were evangelicals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion." -- or nationalism. See Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin himself was a huge antislavery activist, and was sickened when he witnessed slavery auctions during the voyage of the Beagle. This entire thing is topsy-turvy and is characterized by the lies of the religious fundamentalist lunatics.

Even statements like "The United States is a Christian Nation" (in complete denial of the Treaty of Tripoli) and using things like the pledge of allegiance as evidence of this are stupid. The part of the pledge of allegiance that refers to God ("one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all") had the "under God" part inserted more than 50 years after it was written, in the 1950s, and is also evidence of the fierce racist instincts of the religious fundamentalists. The original phrasing was "with liberty and equality for all" but the Baptists and other religious fundamentalists were so opposed to the idea of "equality" that they forced the change to a more authoritarian and harsh "justice" phrasing, much to the author's dismay. --Filll (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, first of all, I am a Baptist, and (most of us) are not racists, or lunatics, nor even fundamentalists. I am a direct descendant of Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, and a famous champion of religious liberty. Please do not bash my religion; and

Secondly, I don't understand how your digression into the argument over America's Christian heritage is relevant to this article; and

Thirdly, the Pledge's "under God" phrase isn't particularly relevant to the argument over America's Christian heritage, since it doesn't mention Christ. Much more relevant are foundational documents such as the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the American Revolutionary War, and which begins, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," and the fact that when the nation was formed, and when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified, most of the States had established official State churches of varying Christian denominations. NCdave (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like to create a section of this article that deals with cases like Christine Comer and others who were persecuted by religious types for any hint that evolution needs to be considered. And discussion of the clearly antisemitic Giertych could go in there. However, I am afraid this might run afoul of WP:SYNTH rules. Comments?--Filll (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can tie them together. What would be the title? I've already suggested that a 'Creationist persecution of theistic evolutionists' article would probably be a starter (I'm not sure if Comer would fit in, given that I don't know her religious views). Antisemitism and creationism only really hold together because they're both views of the Christian right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although Darwin (like pretty near every European in the 19th century) may be a racist by today's standards, by the standards of his day he was extremely progressive in his attitude to non-Europeans. The ironic thing is that the original pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist minister, whose secular wording was subverted because of anti-communist hysteria during the McCarthy era. Go figure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin was actually very non-racist, even by today's standards. However he regarded European civilisation as more advanced than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle he saw in Tierra del Fuego, and some nowadays might claim that was racist. Regarding the persecution of proponents of evolutionary science, some sources have made the point in reference to this film, but it's a question of notability. Going back to the Nazi issue, their list of books to be burned includes Darwin's and Häckel's works. This source makes the point in relation to the film, but it's not a RS. However Dawkins discussed the point in his review, and that's worth citing. .. dave souza, talk 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Ruse had an article Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link at http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802060339 as of 6 Apr 2008, but it's giving a 404. However, G o o g l e's cache at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x0fejjkIR4IJ:tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D2008802060339+%22Tallahassee+Democrat%22+february+2008+Darwin+and+Hitler:+a+not-very-intelligent+link%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk gives the text. Mostly about the disco 'tute campaigning, haven't noticed Xpell'd yet, but will check. .. dave souza, talk 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, bit off topic and no advantage over Dawkins' statement. Re. book burning, Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 –

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).[29]

dave souza, talk 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Translation by Dr. Roland Richter is a vastly better source as it is an academic source by an expert on the subject. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea blog (unfortunately not a WP:RS, I would suspect) takes this one step further with this insightful point:

As Pieret points out, one of the primary complaints from creationists, especially in the film, is that evolution explains nature without reference to any teleology or external purposing or direction. This oft cited lack of purpose supposedly leads people to moral depravity (though, in reality, this critique merely confuses scientific description with moral proscription).

But this complaint is flatly incompatible with the insistence that evolution Holocaust, eugenics, and so on are all the logical end of accepting the evolutionary description of the natural world. For eugenics and Aryan racism alike are nothing if not deeply teleological. Hitler was not interested in human fitness as determined by the natural course of human technology and culture: he sought to impose his own very specific will on it. Eugenics, the same. The Holocaust was, in fact, the directed design of an “intelligent” agent: a depraved and malicious one.[30]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BEN STIEN IS A JEW. Enough said. (My apologies if I come across as angry. All the recent events have gotten me quite frustrated.) Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You think Jews can't be misinformed or lie about The Holocaust? Sounds rather racist to me. .. dave souza, talk 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment please? Also, please don't accuse me of racism. Saksjn (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No accusation, simply that Stein's credibility or otherwise cannot be assumed from his racial or religious background. I would suspect that he is simply misinformed, and has as much expertise on that subject as he has on science. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Miller commentary

The following sentence was added, and then removed by me, and then re-added:

In a conversation with the editorial staff of Scientific American, Mathis questioned the intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic of prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller because he accepts evolution.^{A Conversation with} Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis, Scientific American. Audio recording: part 1 and part 2. Partial transcript.

I don't think this is needed here. 1. The article is already pretty long, so to include a comment that does not deal with the film, but rather critiques a living person only tangentially related to the film, I think does a disservice. We don't need this article to be a dumping ground. 2. The comment is better suited for Miller's article. 3. (For this article) Why do we care what Mathis thinks about Miller? Catholicism does not dismiss evolution out-of-hand like many evangelicals do, so Mathis may be a bit off-base.

I won't re-delete the sentence at the moment, but would hope others can see why this article is not the right place for this comment. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Hrafn re-worded the sentence to include relevance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It always seemed relevant to me, but is clearly so since Hrafn reworded it. Big improvement, and it took him only a few minutes of effort. I do wish you and some others here weren't to quick to delete content and would make an effort to fix content rather than just blow it away, particularly those bits that do not cast a sympathetic light on the film or ID, otherwise it might be mistaken for a campaign... FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

E kala mai, FeloniousMonk. Unlike you, I didn't see the relevance. However, it makes sense now that it has been reworded. As for fixing content... I have been desparately trying, but have been reverted multiple times on occasions of fixing typos, spellings, etc. by what might be mistaken as people trying to own the article. As for a "campaign", I do not know what you are referring to. Besides this Miller commentary, I haven't really removed much other than where there was redundancy. Maybe you're thinking of those "some others" you mentioned. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that, although unsurprised by the sentiment (fundamentalist Creationists accusing TEs of being heretics is nothing new), I'm flabbergasted that Mathis was so naive as to say it in pro-Science company. What sort of bubble do these people live in that would consider such attacks to be acceptable in mixed company? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editing

Ali'i, this was your 3'rd rv of as many editors of this content in less than 30 minutes. Refusing to accept consensus and edit warring are by definition disruptive editing per WP:DE. Wikipedia has 2,331,217 other articles and I suggest you find one of them to edit quietly until you are able to play nicely here.

For the record Ali'i, a source other than the one provided there already isn't needed unless you are denying that the film uses digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as its examples. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that is not the definition of disruptive editing, FeloniousMonk. Disruptive editing has little to do with refusing to accept consensus. It "concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." Plus, it is editing which also fails WP:V because it "fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."

Edits which are not well-described by both of those tests are not disruptive. Ali'i's argument over the accuracy of a quote does not meet either of those tests. They certainly do not constitute "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies," and he did provide verifiable sourcing. Please be more careful with your accusations against fellow editors. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to help the article. We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote. We can't just change people's word to have them saying something they don't say. It's a quote. Making it appear as if they are saying something they don't say is unheard of. Maybe I'm losing my mind here. They may indeed claim the unsourced claims (I have no idea), I only looked at the source provided, and they never said what you people are saying they said. Perhaps move that bit outside of the direct quotation? --Ali'i 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(N.B. Here is the cached page to check my quote: [31] Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

The trouble is that Google Cache is too transient to act as a source (it'll be replaced by what's currently in the page in a few days) -- and the page isn't in Wayback (I just checked). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wayback rarely has anything newer than 6mo old. It is part of their special deal with the Copyright Office. So the page might show up in Wayback in October or November, but we can't count on that. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and ignoring consensus is not helping, it's disruption. If your changes do gain consensus and are rejected in the article the correct next move is to make your case on talk, not reverting. +

We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote."

No, we have to consistent with the source. The film uses supposed digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Felonius, this is a direct quote. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia policies to know which one to link you with, but I'm sure that there is one somewher that says changing a direct sourced quote is a very very bad thing to do, as it essentially puts words into other peoples mouths. You can not make up or change direct quotes from people Restepc (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the film uses the examples Ali'i repeatedly removed as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the "such as the digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells" portion... just not within the quote. I tried a bit to re-include it outside the direct quotation. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's quoting who?

I did a Google search for the original 'digital code' version, as an explicit citation would be the simplest way of diffusing this. All I could come up with is this 2yo piece from the DI. If somebody can find where Expelled's website is found to be saying this, I'd appreciate it -- as it would provide another piece of stark evidence as to just how much the movie is parroting the DI line. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See my note above. It's cached. --Ali'i 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks right. The citation link isn't much use as it's a changing front page. Why are we giving priority to a primary source, anyway? The definition by an independent secondary source would be more useful – the NYT article had "a creationist idea" or "a cousin of creationism", have we a better source pointing to the film promoting intelligent design? ... dave souza, talk 18:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Dave -- if it keeps changing & no archive is kept, then it is completely useless as a source for verification (which leaves both versions of the quote out). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps not saying "the film producers state..." and just saying "Intelligent design is the belief... " (sourced, of course), we can avoid this whole issue. --Ali'i 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to have arisen from bending over backwards to be sympathetic to the film. The problem with citing the film's promoters is that it's taking a primary source without the context of third party independent assessment, giving problems of original research and of presenting the fringe point of view unmoderated by the majority expert viewpoint. A month ago,[32] care was taken to show this context as shown by reliable third party sources –

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism. The Discovery Institute which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism.

This used sources directly related to the film[33][34][35] which were backed up by other more detailed sources, but they date to a period before showings and more recent sources would be preferable, with statements reflecting the newer sources. .. 20:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it looks like I'm being reverted for no reason

Well, the stated reason is WP:NPOV (the neutral point of view policy), however, I cannot see how maintaining all the pieces while ensuring that direct quotes remain direct quotes is not neutral. The revert. Nothing was removed, just moved. The quote is intact, and everyone should have been happy. I'm lost. What does neutrality have to do with keeping quotes quotes? --Ali'i 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked for some additional eyes. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for more eyes. Hopefully someone can explain the neutrality violations better. --Ali'i 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, everyone sees your personal attack and you get blocked. You are whitewashing the Creationists POV. Sorry dude. And spare me any replies on my talk page. Keep it here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries about going to your talk page. How is it whitewashing to have a direct quote be what they actually said? I didn't remove anything... I just moved the middle portion to outside the quotation marks. Creationists Point of View is that quotes should be quotes? Huh. And simply stating that altering quotations to misrepresent people could be considered vandalism is not close to a personal attack. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? All I see is an editor asking for help on an atrociously POV article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. But knowing your POV on this topic, I don't expect or demand much sympathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not at all a personal attack. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any personal attacks by Ali'i here. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a POV on the topic? That's news to me, considering I've yet to edit this article. What magical psychic and forensic powers, pray tell, enabled you to determine what my point of view is?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While the edit was not a very good one and should not have been put in a quote, let's assume good faith and simply revert it. Let's not add another personal attack accusation to a talk page that is already full of crap. Saksjn (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lesson for the future

I think the lesson here is that if we see the Expelled website saying anything juicy, we've got to throw it to WebCite or something similar -- because it may not be there tomorrow. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good policy everywhere, regardless of whether it is "juicy" or not. I couldn't get WebCite to grab the Google Cache page directly, so I saved a copy of the Google cached page which Ali'i cited onto my own web site, and then did a WebCite capture of that page, here. If a couple of folks here will look at it and verify that it is the same as the Google cached page, I think that establishes the needed verifiability, to prove that it is a bona fide copy of the Google cached page. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Altogether, it looks to me like an unreliable source under unreliable editorial control, daunting because it seems to be the website for the film itself but maybe that speaks to the film too? Moreover, I'd be wary of lending too much credibility in the narrative to the overwhelmingly unscientific outlook of the producers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we lose something? What got erased?--Filll (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside and only for a bit of context, I'm hearing lots of healthy skepticism from scientists these days about some of the fundamentals which have been assumed in biochemistry and sub-atomic structure but none of it stems from shallow notions such as intelligent design as put forth in films like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well evolutionary biology is and has been an area of active research. So of course things change and people are always looking to replace current theory with something better. That is just ths sign of an area that is actively being researched. Which the public is usually too stupid to understand.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While a well educated public is well capable of seeing the what's going on, unfortunately the film is part of a political push to "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" aimed at promoting religious credulity rather than the proper scepticism which is thriving in science as it should. .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Spot on what I was getting at, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller

I know this has been discusssed above, but I think one issue with the article may still be the treatment of Kitzmiller v. Dover. I just did a ctrl f search for "Kitzmiller", and wasn't able to find any of the sources that bring it into a discussion about the movie. More importantly, the first time it is raised here, we seem to be discussing the case in isolation, as opposed to presenting anything about what was said in the movie. The second time it is brought in to refute a statement by the Discovery Institute, but again I don't see any source that made this connection. I wouldn't always mind this kind of connection, but the way it is done here seems to create NPOV problems in the article. I think one solution would be just to reduce the discussion of Kitzmiller to possibly one or two sentences, unless we know more about what is said in the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, here's the list of times Kitzmiller comes up:

• "...The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial..."
• "...[The film] went on to assert that "intelligent design also provides a robust positive case, and a serious scientific research approach", a claim that had been explicitly refuted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area..."
• A link under See Also.

Which of these statements is it that you have issues with? Since the first case is the film talking about the case, I would think the mention is relevant. In the second case, I think the usage is quite NPOV, since it complies with WP:UNDUE. And I can't see an issue with have a See Also link. Could you please clarify which usage you think is in error? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the first two that I described above, not the "See also." The problem with the first isn't mentioning it, but that following a mention it goes on to provide several statements from the case that aren't drawn into a discussion of the movie. The second is technically a problem of WP:SYNTH, in that it brings up the case to refute the DI without any source having done so. As I said, one could look beyond this, but the initial discussion in particular seems to go off the topic of the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The first instance is perfectly fine since film explicitly singles out the Kitzmiller ruling for pointed criticism. By opening that topic it makes properly characterizing the scope and result of Kitzmiller not only fair game but necessary for a complete and accurate article, and fully within the bounds of WP:NPOV. Not properly characterizing Kitzmiller would actually violate NPOV in that it have the article present only one side of the debate, that of the producers (which is a tiny minority POV, BTW). The second instance has the same justification: If we are going to cover the public statements of the DI, who is largely directly responsible of much of the film, in support of the film, then NPOV requires that both sides of the debate around the very specific allegations made in their statement be covered; to do anything less is to favor one side. Particularly since the DI's views are a extreme minority view again. The article covers both the film and the response to it, I'm not seeing the issue here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue is we literally don't have anything on what the film says about Kitzmiller, but instead offer four sentences from the case that contradict the thesis of the movie, without any obvious reason for why these were picked out. You could say this is necessary for balance, in order to provide critical views of the movie, but in that case we should be providing material that is critical of the movie, not critical generally about an argument in the movie. I think it's been discussed that this should be the test here, that material should only be brought in where sources do so to discuss the movie, no? My point is that shortening it, for instance removing the block quote, would improve how it reads. Mackan79 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the film's specific criticisms of Kitzmiller would be the right move then and should be easy enough given our resources here. Just on general principles, I think we can all agree that if the film's makers challenge a specific court ruling and majority viewpoint it supports then covering all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (including the ruling) is not only consistent with the NPOV policy but necessary, regardless of whether we detail the specifics of their attack on it or how covering it reads. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with the first part, if not fully second, in that I think we should only really criticize aspects to the extent they've been criticized by reliable sources. For that matter, it appears there's plenty to choose from. I'll look it up, though if anyone knows where this part of the film is discussed that would help. Mackan79 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a couple of sources that clearly describe its appearance in the film. For instance, in the round table discussion in the Scientific American articles about the film it is extensively discussed and criticized by Mark Mathis, associate producer of the film. But it appears in other sources as well.--Filll (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that we had this statement sourced back on March 26th or so. But what happens is that with the volume of people frantic to change the article, and the updated news, the article gets destroyed. So what you should be thinking is, this is just the natural result of this article being on a wiki. Editors like yourself are furious when they are prevented from editing or their edits are reverted because the article is guarded too closely. But when it is not so guarded, driveby editors ruin the article and its sourcing. So what you should be doing is patting yourself and your fellow editors on the back for helping to wreck the article. And instead of complaining, try to look back in the history to see if it was always like that and try to fix it. It is extremely taxing to try to manage the editing of an article like this before a film comes out. Hopefully when the film comes out, everyone will just go away so the article can be finally cleaned up a little. I have rewritten it top to bottom twice, and then new editors come in and crap all over and it and ruin it. I am not frantic to do it again while so many are coming here to immediately change whatever work I do. So...that is just how a wiki is. Do not complain. Deal with it. I do.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just keep in mind all I've done is added a source, and the word "reportedly" due to the fact that the movie isn't out yet. I've certainly seen how articles can deteriorate. I'm not entirely sure about the sources, though; you added one, but I couldn't find mention of the case. From Google I do apparently find a podcast of the discussion with Mathis, is that what you mean? I see mention on the Panda's Thumb about his claim that it was written by the ACLU. If we were going to discuss that claim, though, I'm not sure it leads to extended quotes from the case. Unless there's something else, it seems this is still an issue with the article. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Troublemakers, or as we like to refer to them at Big Science Academy, “The Expelled”…are seemingly everywhere these days. You know the type – they always want to “challenge” the established order and are always in a “questioning” mode. Especially when it comes to science.

The latest “rage” among these Free Speech types is the misguided notion of Intelligent Design, which holds that perhaps life on earth isn’t just an “accident,” and that new evidence is mounting, suggesting some sort of underlying order to the universe, an intelligent “design” and so on and so forth.

Crazy as it may seem, these “cranks” will start questioning atheism, next thing you know!

Fortunately, as you will see in the links listed below – our “graduates” in the nation’s schools, universities, judiciary and government institutions are making sure that these “Expelled” types are rightfully marginalized.

With the help of our friends in “Big Media” and the secularist courts – these self-styled Newtons and Einsteins are being denied tenure, ridiculed and in some cases fired, for their ridiculous beliefs and groundless suppositions.

Click on the links to the right to see for yourself! >

TROUBLEMAKERS:
Guillermo Gonzales

Richard Sternberg

Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Dr. Caroline Crocker[36]

Let's see:

1. The title of the movie is 'Expelled'
2. The movie's website explicitly equates these "expelled" with "troublemakers"
3. On the same page it explicitly states that one of these "troublemakers" is "Kitzmiller vs. Dover"

I therefore think we can safely say that this movie is, at least in part, about KvD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, why are you so obsessed with this film in particular, and defending the Theory of Evolution in general? 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

Please see WP:SOCK. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you still maintain that the film has no mention of Kitzmiller v. Dover? Of course, I restored the Overview link, and the claim was made that it did not include information about the trial. Here it is explicitly, for those who are having trouble:

The Dover Trial The trial in Dover, PA is mentioned, but the film tries to spin the crushing defeat (Watch NOVA's piece on the trial here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ). Stein says something like "I thought science was decided by evidence, not the courts."

As I said before, go to the large online set of articles that are associated with Scientific American. We have the link in the article, right? Or we sure used to. We have it above on the talk page. Go there and find the round table discussion with Mathis. And play it. And hear what he says explicitly about the Dover trial. And yes the Panda's Thumb discussion you found was commenting on at least part of what Mathis said in the round table to Scientific American. And Hrafn has pointed out that Kitzmiller appears in the marketing materials for the film and on the website. So Kitzmiller appears to be part of the promotion of the film and part of the film. Now I am not sure that our present treatment of Kitzmiller in this article is particularly encyclopedic or well written. Last I saw it was a hash. But this is what happens when an article is popular, and the entire world is allowed to edit it. It turns into a mess. As I have pointed out here repeatedly. We have to just try to manage it until the excitement dies down a bit, which it will after the film comes out. Then when things are quiet, this entire article will have to be drastically rewritten. I have done it twice, and it is a huge amount of work. And I am not anxious to do it again and see all my work undone in a few hours or days. Are you anxious to waste your time like that? So the best we can do is try to keep the article from deteriorating too badly before the movie comes out, and then wait until the fuss dies down.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I'd just like to find the material in order to improve what we have. I understand you're saying problems with it aren't anybody's fault. But, if there were something more focused on a discussion that's occurred I think that would be better than what we have. Otherwise a little background on the case would still be good, it just needs to be focused a little, which I may try after I look a little further. Mackan79 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller case is crucial to the film, as it established that ID is creationist anti-evolution with mentions of God or Creation removed to meet the requirements imposed by the Edwards v. Aguilard case. Their strategy of promoting intelligent design as a credible science was scuppered, and they've turned increasingly to promoting anti-evolution propaganda with the aim of "academic freedom" to teach religion in science classes, without school boards explicitly mandating it as happened at Dover. This infringes precedents set by earlier court cases, but the current legislative moves as in Florida could mean that court cases would be against individual teachers rather than school boards. The case summary is a valuable source for independent analysis of many aspects of intelligent design, and is cited accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan seems to have trouble accepting that. I agree it needs to stay, as do the other regulars. Let's move along to a more useful topic and leave this dead horse alone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The case should be outlined, but not discussed in detail beyond what is found in reviews of the movie. That's why we have an article on the case, where people can go to read about it. I'm not sure to what extent others disagree with this, but if it is contested it's an important issue that should be discussed. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

146 footnotes for an unreleased film?

Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed - is a controversial documentary film and It is due to be released on April 18, 2008.

This page is 109 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

There are 146 footnotes and the film has not been released yet.

This article is barely encyclopedic, if at all.

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The clique is afraid; very afraid. 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

There ought to be no unsubstantiated claims of "consensus" that this article does not need work if it is to conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There are a number of opinions offered on this page, and elsewhere that this article is defective. For a start it is too long, and much material needs to be excised. The film hasn't been released yet, this is way too much information, and much of it is off-topic. --Newbyguesses (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The film has not yet been released to the general public, but the marketing strategy involves showing it to a large number of mostly friendly audiences pre-release. The buzz works both way - there are a lot of reliable sources about this movie already. This is no comment on the other issues - I've not had time to look into the article in much detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIZE#No need for haste, before making hasty changes to the article. The article is currently only the 676th longest in wikipedia, so the need for reduction isn't exactly compelling. Part of the reason for the size is that it is a controversial topic, so has far more thorough citation than a less controversial article (per requirements of WP:V), adding to the byte-size but not the word-count (and thus not causing readability problems). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fed the article into a word-processor and it comes out at 9,500 words (probably a bit of an over-estimate, as its count would include some footnote, 'edit', etc links as 'words'), which is within WP:SIZE's 6,000 to 10,000 word recommendation. Therefore there is no problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

--LATE reply to User Hrafn : [37] is fine with me. I will wait to see how long the article gets to once the movie is released. Who knows, maybe some sort of record can be set! I have not read all of it, but I am impressed by the level of detail, and particularly some of the headers and sub-headers. If the writing remains focussed and contextual, and some of it is entertaining and informs the general reader, there could be a candidacy for Featured Article in the offing. Cheers, and thanks for setting me straight. --

Two points - Could the 'word' Controv----l be avoided, if possible. If something is "controversial", describe what happened; is only a suggestion. - I would like to see no foot-notes required in the Lead Section, even if that means it is only twenty words, and the rest goes below the first section-header. That is only a suggestion, thanks, --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore and Micheal Moore's Movies are as equally controversial and they don't have a wall of excessive critism posted by those who personally dipise the thought and primises of them, as is done here by those who vehemently oppose Expelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the proponentsists are dispised and rejected, as Händel said, the primises of this are rather more complex to describe, and more controversial if the ambitions of the wedge doc are anything to go by. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How many lawsuits about global warming took place in the last 75 years? How many fights over putting global warming in public schools have taken place? How many controversies were associated with Gore's film? How many scientists were tricked into appearing in Gore's film? To be honest, these two are not at all comparable. But thanks for your input.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re my recent edit to cut a large chunk from the article: Too much of this article is turning into the debate itself. Surely describing the film and what people say about it should be the aim, not describing the debate surrounding the topics raised in the film. I haven't yet touched the paragraphs about what ID is and what people say about it, but hardly any of that is necessary. Why isn't it enough to say: "the films supports ID, read more at "intelligent design" and let the argument over how to present ID rage over there. GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be about the film, not ID. Refs that concern the film and ID are definitely apropo, but refs only about ID shouldn't be included in my opinion. I'm an atheist, so it isn't that I like ID or something, I just think this article should concentrate on the film and responses to it, not responses to ID in general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your arguments are not really particularly compelling. This film is about the intelligent design variety of creationism. It describes the Dover court case. It includes interviews with major proponents of intelligent design and excludes other creationists, much to their disappointment. It repeats common creationist arguments and the claim that evolution is associated with abortions and communism and Naziism and the Holocaust. For this article to make any sense, we have to describe the background a little. For NPOV, we have to present a tiny amount of the other side. If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the applicable policies/guidelines that say we should reference unrelated sources about ID when discussing this film? Obviously the majority of editors at this page have a consensus that the positions of this film should be debunked, even if it takes an unrelated reference to do it. This is probably the correct position since even Raul654 seems to agree, but for some reason it seems fishy to me. I guess I would like the reasoning explained to me so that I can feel this article is meeting NPOV and I don't have to worry about it any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this film is most certainly not "about the intelligent design variety of creationism," inasmuch as the folks that produced it disagree with your POV that intelligent design is a variety of creationism (as do many other folks, including the ASA, the Discovery Institute, and even preeminent ID critic Dr. Ronald Numbers, who wrote, "I think that both demographically and intellectually, [the charge that ID is a version of creationism] doesn't hold a lot of water... [ID leaders] are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism"[38]).

Also, Filll, please refrain from condescending remarks like, "If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved." It seems to me that Peregrine_Fisher's understanding is just fine, but even if it were not you still should not insult him. NCdave (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Numbers is using creationism there in the narrow sense of young Earth creationism, and I'm sure that everyone would agree that it's not necessarily YEC though it takes care to include that variation of creationism in the Big Tent. However, there is conclusive evidence that it's a form of creationism in the broader sense as used at Kitzmiller. Note that the use of the term to mean "anti-evolution for religious reasons" began with proponentsists of old Earth creationism. .. dave souza, talk 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

most turbulent time on this talk page ever

I can't wait till things get back to normal around here. Do the regulars suppose that things will calm down after the film comes out? Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been serious fights here before if you check the statistics. Yes people will get bored with this article once the film has closed. It is not clear that it will be a successful opening, since so many have panned it, even on the right. Most of those who have praised it have some sort of ideological axe to grind about this issue.

If one thinks about it, Ben Stein is not as popular as he was 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. And this topic is sort of boring; some academics that might have been in trouble for thinking about Darwinism but really werent. And some link to the Holocaust that is sort of weak. The average person has no idea what the Holocaust was so this is sort of worthless. Even the lawsuit threat has not made it into the regular media, so that is not going to stir up interest. The copyright lawsuit might never happen. Or it might be dismissed immediately. Or it might be so boring that it gets no coverage in the media.

So I think the interest in this article will collapse in a couple of days. It will calm down here, and then eventually the article will be stable enough to actually edit in a productive way and turn its horrendous writing into something readable.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV ax grinders will wander off soon enough. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune

"Movies: Hiding 'Expelled' from critics a not-so-intelligent move - Salt Lake Tribune". Retrieved 2008-04-14. is a good summary of the situation from a critic excluded from seeing the film who starts with – "Every semi-knowledgeable moviegoer and reader of movie criticism knows what the words "not screened for critics" means: The movie is a dog." Nothing new as far as I can see. .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while not new it's the second source I've seen to be critical of keeping this film away from the critics and instead using supporters as test audiences (the other is the New Scientist blog). Maybe this needs to be worked into the promotion section. GDallimore (Talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However, "OVERCOMPENSATING: The Journal Comic With a Seething Disdain for Reality". Retrieved 2008-04-14. – best review yet! .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page first... see I'm learning :-)

People in the past couple of days have been fighting over the "99.9%", "nearly all", "some", etc. wording of the sentence leading into the people in the film.

My question is, do we need a qualifier at all? The 99.9% number is not really supported in the given source. The source only states that 99.9% of scientists accept evolution ("Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.), not that they view it as an intrusion (they might and probably do, but the 99.9 number is not Verifiable). The "nearly all" and "some" and "most" are weasel-ish and vague. So why don't we just say "scientists", instead of "nearly all scientists", etc.? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More: Okay, so while I was typing this, Mackan went a step further and removed the whole bit. Is this okay? --Ali'i 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right; the reason I removed it, as I said, was simply because the topic of the sentence isn't what scientists believe in general, but rather the fact that scientists are presented in the movie arguing against ID in science class. The problem is also that the article loses credibility if it keeps inserting this where it isn't necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mckan and Ali'i. I'm the person who inserted the "99.9%" figure into this article to begin with, and I only did it because it seemed to be the only way to persuade other editors that we must not take a stand as encyclopedia writers that the minority view is wrong. They agreed to stop taking a stand, if the 99.9% figure was inserted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 99.9 percent figure can be sourced to an NIH journal. A 99.85 percent figure is described in a Newsweek article. This is inline with analyses using the Discovery Institute A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition. It squares with the declarations of the AAAS and literally dozens of other scientific societies representing millions upon millions of scientists. It is not in conflict with other petitions like Project Steve or A Scientific Support for Darwinism. If you look at the previous versions of this article, 99.9 percent was in the article with appropriate references. Of course, with many driveby editors coming in here to destroy the article, it was lost. But it was in there.--Filll (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a figure, but I think you have to admit the placement there was getting close to satirical. Actually in truth I'm not this is the right article for that figure, unless someone mentions it in relation to the film, but the third paragraph of this section is probably the best fit currently. Mackan79 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is not really worth a lot of effort to try to get the details and wording perfect, because any work you put in will just get swept away quickly. Better to try to aim for getting the broad outlines roughly correct, and not worry about the details now. We can fiddle with cleaning up the horrible language and other problems after this film comes out and the excitement dies down. In the meantime, just relax and enjoy the ride.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an assumption here that accepting evolution and accepting ID are contradictory. That's not correct. I accept both. I think just about everybody in relevant fields at least accepts the evolutionary explanation that natural selection causes changes in wild species, just as artificial selection obviously does in domesticated species. Perhaps a few young earth creationists do not accept at least that, but probably even most of them do.

So it does not follow from that fact that nearly all scientists say they accept evolution, that nearly all scientists also reject ID. In fact, I'd wager that most of the members of the American Scientific Affiliation would say that they accept both evolution and ID. Many might also call themselves "creationists," but if so they would not mean young earth creationists. NCdave (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wager is worthless without a reliable source, and since intelligent design is essentially anti-evolution in drag your argument lacks credibility. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have long lists of scientific organizations that explicitly reject ID; dozens of major scientific organizations, representing millions of scientists, have issued statements to that effect. We even had links to these in the article before, but thanks to edit warring driveby editors like yourself, they were removed. People wonder why we put so many references in our articles; well, this is why. Because when we let them get removed, then assorted yahoos and jokers show up to spew all kinds of nonsense. Although I might believe in some aspects of "intelligent design" I think that the program being pushed by the Discovery Institute which has co-opted the name for their own purposes is just pure nonsense and not science at all.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's your reliable source, Dave Souza.

As a matter of common principle, the ASA states, "we believe in creation." But the ASA also advocates the teaching of evolution as science.

About ten years ago the ASA's Commission on Creation produced this interesting report, summarizing the varying positions of the ASA's members. It consists of a "General Statement on Creation" with which all the Commission's members agreed, plus four separate (non-exclusive) position statements for positions held by subsets of the ASA's membership: Young Earth Creation View, Old Earth Creation View, Theistic Evolution View, and Intelligent Design View. It asserts that "ID is logically consistent both with theistic evolution and with special creation in its various forms."

Note that the Young Earth Creation View is a distinctly minority view in the ASA.[39]

This interesting paper by the ASA's Keith B. Miller presents one of the range of positions taken by members of that organization, and here's a relevant quote: "Genesis describes the origin of humankind in precisely the same manner as that of all other living things (Gen 2:7,9,19). The origin of our physical nature is not different from that of other creatures -- we are made of the same stuff. If God used and providentially controlled evolutionary mechanisms in the creation of plants and animals, I see no reason to reject an evolutionary origin for humankind. In fact, the testimony of both scripture and nature is that we share a oneness with the rest of creation. Our physical natures are inseparably connected to the rest of life on Earth.

While Genesis roots our physical origin in the stuff of the Earth, it also places us firmly in a unique position before God and creation. The error is to attribute unique status to our physical nature, as though our exalted position is founded on something other than God's grace. I believe that it is our relationship to God more than anything else which distinguishes us. From the dust of the Earth God had raised up a creature and imparted to it a spiritually conscious soul. By this act of grace God elevated humanity to a special position of conscious and willing fellowship with Himself."

Filll, I hope you don't mind that I indented your comment. NCdave (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not like this progressive indentation. But sure indent me if you like. However, if one looks at the books and other publications associated with the intelligent design movement, they are all anti-evolution. All the pronouncements about materialism and naturalism from proponents of intelligent design are distinctly anti-evolution and even anti-science. And I would not take the ASA as necessarily a very good source for much in this regard. Just like I would be cautious about the declarations of the Discovery Institute. One has to be very very careful to see what the real substance of the concept known as "intelligent design" is. These organizations rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools, so they make a lot of confusing statements.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an outrageous and unsupportable accusation, Filll. The ASA most certainly does not "rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools." NCdave (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The ASA were founded by Creationists, but the organisation moved fairly quickly in the direction of theistic evolution (with a fair number getting off at the progressive creationism station enroute). My impression is that the leadership was (and maybe still is) more conservative than the rank and file. Morris helped form the CRS and later formed the ICR at least partially in reaction to the ASA's perceived apostasy. This is all documented in exhaustive detail in The Creationists. As far as I know it currently includes all sorts from TEs to the likes of Dembski. If Keith B. Miller is the guy I think he is, he's on the board of Kansas Citizens for Science and a fairly vocal anti-creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would however point out that TE is generally held to be incompatible with Creationism, including ID, (by both TEs and Creationists) and that whilst TE scientists accept the theology of Creation ('God did it') they reject the claims of Creationism ('God left discernable toolmarks on the universe'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it and will strongly object and any further removals. The fact that a very respected and reputable scientific periodical has published an article stating 99.9% of scientists accept evolution over creationism is highly relevent to an article covering a film whose premise is that the scientific community is trying to hide evidence that creationism is widely accepted by many scientists and that its persecuting those who do. I can't think of a single number other than the release date that could be more relevant to this article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the number should be mentioned, but Mackan has a point that perhaps where it is now isn't the best place for it Restepc (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The version that ReloniousMonk reverted it to says:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what 99.9% of scientists, science educators and judicial precedent view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

That has several defects:

• Most obviously, it is grammatically garbled. What are 99.9% of judicial precedent?
• Even if we drop "and judicial precedent" from the sentence, to make it make sense, it is not true. There is no source or evidence for the claim that 99.9% of scientists and science educators view ID as an intrusion in science classes.
• It conflates two distinctly different groups of people: those who advocate the teaching of evolution, and those who view ID as an intrusion in science classes.

Mackan's version is much better, and has none of those defects:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

So I've (un)reverted it back to Mackan's version. NCdave (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about NCdaves points, his argument is pretty much bulletproof, and I think the 'some' version should stay. Though it's still probably be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article, for undue weight reasons, that Evolution is universally accepted by scientists, but NCdave again has a point that this doesn't necessarily mean that all those scientists are dead against ID. Restepc (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

His argument is very much original research, using primary sources and placing an interpretation and weight on them without a reliable third party source as a basis. He doesn't mention the distinction the ASA seem to draw between "intelligent design" which for them includes theistic evolution, and "Intelligent Design" which they use to mean intelligent design as promoted by this film. Their official position is confused and dates back a number of years, but the idea that a significant proportion of the membership support the DI's version is pure speculation. As always, the interpretation of the percentage of scientists supporting evolution should be based on reliable secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that OR as such, true he hasn't actually presented a source for it, but probably one could be found, I have tried completely rephrasing that line, partly to get around the 99.9% argument, and partly to make it clearer and more grammatically straight forward. I'm happy with it....but I wrote it so I'm biased, what do you lot think? Restepc (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the same problem as I had with view/views really, I happy with saying the supreme court has determined it to be unconstitutional (possibly some small arguments over whether 'intrusion' is also 'determined' but that's just arguing for the sake of it)....but, scientists didn't 'determine' it, they described it. What about.....and this seems ambitious even to me....

"what scientists [science education expert?] have described as and supreme court rulings have determined to be the "unconstitutional intrusion" of blah de blah"? Restepc (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay ignore the above, Hrafn saw it himself, hopefully this is that sentence sorted now Restepc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The more complex this becomes, the more clear that the one word "intrusion" is the most accurate characterisation of the various determinations of a wide range of experts: 'not good science' by scientists; 'confusing/misrepresenting science' by science education experts; 'not following the methodologies of science' by philosophers of science; and 'not constitutional' by SCOTUS (and lesser courts) -- i.e. it is "without permission, welcome, or fitness" (per definition of "intrude" above). The more we attempt to qualify the word, the more trouble we run into, because the more ways we find that it is an "intrusion" that isn't allowed for by those qualifications we've placed upon it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are being too sensitive about this, and other things in the article. The problem with "intrusion" is straight forward, that it's subjective whether this is an intrusion. Thus unless some better wording is found, "what they regard as an intrusion" is the simple solution, in that everyone knows "intrusion" is negative and thus that you can't state it as fact. People seem to have come to expect that in every such situation we'll then hammer in how much support there is for this, but this is what is mucking up the article. If you said "what they regard as bad science" we might have a problem, but to say "what they regard as an intrusion" is certainly fair. Otherwise we'd need to reword the whole sentence. Mackan79 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with naming the people interviewed (in that 2nd sentence). But this first sentence is both bad prose and inaccurate:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.

• The Supreme Court has said nothing at all about ID.
• The use of the plural form "rulings" is wrong, since just one district court judge has weighed in, and he only ordered that science teachers not be required to teach about ID, he didn't forbid them from teaching about ID.
• Using the word "determined" to express one POV in a two-sided argument is POV.
• Calling ID a "religious doctrine" is POV.

Mackan79's version has none of those problems. NCdave (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The "problem with 'intrusion'" is not straight forward, as it is not "subjective". Objectively an "intrusion" is thrusting something in that doesn't belong. Objectively, creationism meets few or none of the hallmarks of science (depending on exactly what form of creationism you're discussing and exactly how you define these hallmarks). Therefore objectively creationism does not belong in science, and objectively attempting to insert it into a science class is an "intrusion".
2. In any case the "subjective" argument is a complete red herring -- articles use subjective adjectives on a regular basis -- "prominent", "controversial", etc, etc. That they are subjective is not problematical, it is only a problem if the substantiation for them is missing or ambiguous. However, even were "intrusion" subjective, the substantiation for it among the experts is unambiguous and unequivocal.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion/exclusion

We've reworded the sentence to the point of incoherence, trying to bow to the minority viewpoint that religious teaching is appropriate in a science classroom. As now:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

My preference would be;

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

That's clear about what they're opposed to, it's others who argue that religious doctrings should be included. .. dave souza, talk 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Omigosh pleeeease. Enough already. --Ali'i 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, and I'd certainly prefer the simple "intrusion" to what's there currently. However, it does have the same problem of suddenly focusing intently on the critics, as opposed to focusing on the movie or the initial topic of a paragraph (in this case, what's shown in the movie). I think that's why it is catching people's attention. Mackan79 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think the best thing is simply to put 'what they view as the' before intrusion, but I'm going with the current version in the spirit of compromise, I would strongly object to having just 'the intrusion', as it sounds distinctly anti-ID, which wikipedia obviously can't do. Restepc (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, to clarify, I think both those versions have that same problem, in switching sharply and unnecessarily to the critical perspective. This is why I prefered "they perceive as." Otherwise "inclusion" means the same thing as "intrusion" minus the judgment, and is actually probably the most correct. However, it might be that we still need a third option. Mackan79 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why editing with a large group, many of who have a distinct agenda, is very difficult. They want to include all kinds of extraneous details. They want to slant the text. They want to introduce weasel words. Of course, simple and direct is better. After all, someone has to read this thing. I get tired of this nonsense. Can people understand why experienced pro-rational editors sometimes get tired and just blast the hell out of assorted malcontents and people pushing narrow points of view or people with agendas? Goodness gracious.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean people like me and Ali'i? Restepc (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Restepc, you're objecting to a "distinctly anti-ID" sounding term in a section that presents the views of oponents of ID. If you really want the pro-ID view presented, it would be clearer to add a sentence AFTER the names sentence, saying that "Supporters of intelligent design want it to be included in public school science classes, but this is opposed by the overwhelming majority of scientists and has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts." ... dave souza, talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am objecting to the article sounding anti-ID. The article should sound neutral. Articles can say what other peoples views are, but they shouldn't have a view of their own, no matter how 'correct' the view may be Restepc (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and so have others "intrusion" is a very strong word, its fine to atribute it to some one ie the scientists say its an intrusion into the classroom but WIKIPEDIA can't speak with with that sort language. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The problem with this article is that most of the criticism isn't about the film at all. I'm not going to get embroiled in the whole controversy over how we should present intelligent design vs. evolution in science articles; I'm not a scientist and I'm not qualified to make that judgment. But this article is not a science article; it's an article about a film. Therefore, it is original research for Wikipedia editors to use scientific sources, which are not about the film, to criticise the film - and this is what most of the article currently consists of. Most of the sources cited have nothing to do with Expelled; they are about intelligent design in general. The article is therefore mostly OR by synthesis. Basically, it's constructed in this way:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this is not consistent with the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[cites various scientific journal articles which do not mention the film]

Certainly, the article should contain criticism. But it should be criticism of the film, not intelligent design in general. Thus, it should be like this:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this has been challenged by critics A and B, who have reviewed the film and argued that these claims are unscientific and false.[cites reviews of the film by A and B]

Basically, we should not be taking sources which criticise intelligent design in general and using them to write our own critique of the film. This is a textbook case of OR. The criticism cited should be from sources about the film. Walton^One 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)