Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Way too much bias in this article to be wikipedia

This article is really bad for wikipedia. Just read it. It's reads hit piece that could have been been written by "National Center for Science Education". Hardly an impartial organization in this dispute.

To write an article that contains a known controversy you need to turn off your bias and come at it like a true journalist. Wikipedia is not a forum for polemical disputes.

To the owner of this article. I don't have time to fix this article or engage in edit wars over polemical ideology. The first sentence that caught my attention was "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community."

The words "scientific community" I then find merely means "National Center for Science Education".

So I checked the degrees held by the people in that organization and found their degrees are no greater or more authoritative than the degrees held by people that signed the decent document. So how does how does the "National Center for Science Education" = equal the entire scientific community as claimed in this article?

To start with the sentence "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community." SHOULD BE CHANGED TO "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the National Center for Science Education."

That's just for starters. This article is a mess and not wikipedia at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mikearion:

1. First read National Center for Science Education#Staff and supporters and then peruse the DI's list of staff and fellows. Guess which organisation counts as a WP:RS on matters of science.
2. Wikipedia does not "come at it like a true journalist", because Wikipedia refuses to give equal validity to every half-baked crank, unlike 'true' (truly witless or truly spineless?) journalists.
3. Wikipedia articles have no WP:OWNER.
4. Read List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. The scientific community has rejected ID, it has done so for years, it has done so in great detail.
5. The claim that you inserted into the article that "As of the January 2010 update to the list all signatories held either a Ph.D or both Ph.D and M.D. degrees" is WP:BOLLOCKS. Bernard d'Abrera is still on the list, and he ain't got no PhD.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

From mikearion back at you:

THIS ARTICLE NOTHING BUT A DIATRIBE!!! This is not wikipedia I'm sorry.

• No, this is most certainly Wikipedia, giving WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs that state that the petition lacks scientific legitimacy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

However, you are correct Bernard d'Abrera has two Bachelor of Arts and was allowed to sign due to his being a highly regarded scientist. The only exception I see on the list. Correct the section and put it back in, note any exceptions. Why are you attempting hide the fact there are over 700 Ph.Ds that signed this document? WHY? If not due to some very extreme bias on your part???

• d'Abrera is only the most blatant example -- last I checked there was at least one economist in there, as well as numerous philosophers, mathematicians and engineers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You should NOT be contributing to this article if you don't think wikipedia should not engage in bias. And clearly you ARE very biased so check yourself or please check out of wikipedia. You do a great disservice to the community by doing this.

• Read WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia has an explicit bias in favour of consensus/majority expert views and against fringe and pseudoscientific views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I never even heard of the list and came here to find out about it only to find a massive diatribe. What the hell?

• Politiely ask specific questions and you may get an answer -- "massive diatribe. What the hell?" just makes people want to show you the door. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to the list. I found that over 700 Ph.Ds signed the list the vast majority of which are not members of Discovery. Why is that section removed?

• According to a NYT piece (cited in the article) most are religious conservatives and few have qualifications relevant to evolution. In any case 700 is a mere drop in the ocean -- see Project Steve for example. The section was removed because its sourcing failed WP:SELFPUB: "unduly self-serving". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And why remove the signatory link and information? I cannot think of anything basic to the article than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOSLINKS -- links go in references & external links sections. The list is already there, the "information" is demonstrably inaccurate and so not included. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A New York Times Piece? LOL, your killing me these people are PH.Ds in BIOLOGY and other sciences. I didn't know that "religious conservatives" with Ph.Ds are not as good as ? with Ph.Ds? I would venture to say most Ph.Ds belong to one religion or another. So what's you point. Leave the signatory section IT's HIGHLTY RELEVANT as this article is about that list is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• NYT: see WP:RS#News organizations. "these people are PH.Ds in BIOLOGY and other sciences" -- no they don't. The vast majority do not have a degree in biology. The majority do not have a degree in a field even related to evolutionary biology. And many of them do not even have a degree in a sicentific discipline (engineering, maths, philosophy and even economics). My (and the NYT's) point is that their support for this petition was demonstrated to be religious not scientific. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing a find search on the list finds at least a hundred in biology others in related fields such as genetics. But what does that have to do with anything? Per their listing a requirement a Ph.D in the natural sciences is what they are looking form. Or M.D. Professors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

mikearion, this is to be expected. It demonstrates exactly why wikipedia is sometimes regarded as unreliable source for many things. Definitely shows why some teachers will tell students not to use wikipedia as a source (though using sources from wikipedia articles is ok). Wikipedia has taken a stance on this issue and any article of this type or related is either lacking in information, lacking in objectivity or a mixture of both. I try to post on some of these article talk pages but really, I know it is how its going to be. The unfortunate thing is that wikipedia rules seem to support their behaviour. Eventually other wiki sites will replace it if this continues. Just takes time. --72.27.11.196 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, this is exactly what I was thinking. This is incredible. I've never seen anything like it before on wiki. I was reading it and wondering what was so weird about it until I realised it sounded virtually as if it was penned by every anti-creationist site I've ever read. This is the suckiest neutrality I've ever seen. Please fix. -- SuperMudz (Sorry if there's something magic I'm supposed to do here, but I've never posted before I don't think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.122.72 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Contents of the disputed 'Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document'

1. "The document is maintained and updated by the Discovery Institute. As of January 2010 update to the document there were over 700 signatories to "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"." is largely duplicative of material already in the lead.
2. "There were 38 fellows of the Discovery Institute as of January 2011, several of which were signatories as of the 2010 update maintained by the organization." is unsourced.
3. "Per the Discovery Institute Maintained Website. 'Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:'" this is inaccurate, and thus "unduly self-serving" WP:SELFPUB (even assuming it was correctly sourced to the DI website).
4. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." -- duplicative of the 'Statement' section.
5. "In spite of the requirement to hold either a Ph.D or M.D. degree there are exceptions that have been permitted to sign the document." is almost certainly WP:OR.

My conclusion is that this new section serves no purpose. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That website is maintained by the Discovery Institute. The section serves a purpose in that this article appears to bury these facts or completely omit them consistent with the biased diatribe it truly is. Click "Contact" at the website "http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org" and the contact headquarters are:

Discovery Institute 208 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104

Phone Numbers: Voice: (206) 292-0401 Fax: (206) 682-5320

So there is no doubt that site belongs to and is maintained by that organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the section 'buries' the DI's involvement in the opening bleeding sentence' -- very subtle. It likewise buries the number of signatories in the lead and buries the dissent statement by giving it its own entire section! Have a WP:TROUT and get a bleeding clue! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

All disputed items in the section have been removed. A link to the website and exact quote is present. Nothing but exact quotes. And since this article is supposedly about this list there is no higher purpose I can conceive than that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No. "All disputed items in the section have" NOT been removed. The Discovery Institute is at best a WP:QS (with a long reputation for misrepresentation and dishonesty), and the statement is demonstrably false, so is clearly "unduly self-serving" and thus in violation of WP:SELFANDQUEST. The list is discussed by third party sources (per Wikipedia policy) elsewhere -- particularly the 'Affiliations and credentials' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One last observation about this article. The article appears to be more of a diatribe against the "Discovery Institute Organization" and NOT about the document titled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

I came to this page looking for information regarding this document I read about elsewhere. Just to find junk diatribe I had to wade through. But little about this document is present or the people signing. Just massive amounts of information coming from someone bent on discrediting this organization called "Discovery Institute". And while my research does confirm they maintain the document I see no reason for the diatribe against the organization here. It's out of context. It's interesting the organization has so many critics and maybe an article dedicated to that would be useful. However, this article should be MUCH MUCH more concise on to the point about the document in question. Most of the people signing the document don't even appear as "fellows" of that organization. So discrediting the organization to discredit the document is really a fallacy that I can see.

I recommend, shorten it to the concise article is should rightly be. Move most of this content to another article where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Mikearion-the-incapable-of-signing: Wikipedia reports what reliable third parties state about a topic, NOT what the topic's rather disreputable creator lies about it, and NOT what you want written. Come up with some reliable third party sources, and people might see you as something other than simply a disruption. And LEARN HOW TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! I am SICK TO BLOODY DEATH of the edit conflicts your laziness inevitably causes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So what in that section is now being disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ASKED AND ANSWERED: "The Discovery Institute is at best a WP:QS (with a long reputation for misrepresentation and dishonesty), and the statement is demonstrably false, so is clearly "unduly self-serving" and thus in violation of WP:SELFANDQUEST." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discovery Institute is the undisputed author of that document. If they are WP:QS then what sources can we use to support this article at all. If not the authors of the document titled by the article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ASKED AND ANSWERED: "reliable third party" sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Discovery website was listed as a source when I arrive at this article.

Further This article violates "Neutral point of view" nothing neutral going here. And this conversation prove that out. Wow.

Community guidelines clearly state that: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

This article doesn't even come close to neutrality. It's clearly a diatribe against an organization called "The Discovery Institute" that are the authors or commissioners of the document. About every reference to any person signing the document is made to discredit the person.

FURTHER TO PROVE MY POINT ABOUT BIAS:

The article states: "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community".

However, the document makes no claims whatsoever but consists of one concise statement not drawing any conclusions. So how in the world could the "scientific community" have rejected claims the document doesn't even make? The only thing in the document are signatures and this statement of skepticism.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural of life. Careful examination of the selection to account for the complexity evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The people that appear to control and maintain this article clearly do so with OVERWHELMING bias. And they should not be editing this article knowing they have that bias it's a clear violation of basic community guidelines.

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would suggest that Mikearion the Preceding unsigned (sign your bleeding comments!) read WP:NPOV more carefully. At WP:DUE it states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If all the reliable sources (and especially the prominent ones) say one thing, then Wikipedia will not state anything else -- no matter how much you or the DI would like it to be otherwise. On the matter of rejection by the scientific community, I would suggest that the unequivocal acceptance of evolution by dozens of scientific organisations is indeed a "rejection" of the Dissent's anti-evolution message. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of the WP:NPOV ignores the point of representing ALL significant viewpoints, not just the most supported one (or the one you like) as long as the sources are reliable on the issue. The message is also not anti-evolution. The fact you think it is suggests you are thinking dogmatically. The signed statement is broadly in keeping with excellent scientific integrity. As a matter of fact, ALL scientists should have been expected to sign this statement. The fact that it gets this much hatred from people shows that, on evolution, nobody is treating it as part of science but more of a religion. An article about such a statement should not be so negative, yet it is. --72.27.11.196 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Impartial tone:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank for quoting policy without actually demonstrating how the article violates it (and for failing to sign your comment -- yet again -- is the "~" key on your keyboard broken?). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well do whatever you like with this article. It's a sad thing to see here at wikipedia. At least remove this obviously false statement at the beginning.

The article states: "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community".

There are NO claims in the document for the "scientific community" to reject. And a single organization is not "the scientific community".

If you cannot see any bias in this diatribe (I mean article) then what can I say?

Using wikipedia for an agenda is in insult to everyone that contributes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) ~

My observation of this article and the people protecting it they have some kind of agenda regarding the document. The document consists of a single very concise statement. But this article is anything but concise, full of diatribes pointed at the organization that commissioned the document. Most of this content belongs in another article and should be moved. At most this article deserves three or four paragraphs which links to other related information and wikipedia articles. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly silly:

1. Sign your bleeding comments.
2. The only "false statement" in the article is you demonstrably false "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences"
3. The Dissent makes a fairly obvious implied claim that the "Darwinian theory" of evolution is in some way inadequate.
4. Liar, liar, pants on fire: it is not "a single organization" -- it is dozens of organisations (and I think you'd have trouble finding an organisation dissenting).
5. All I "see" is somebody, who appears neither able to read the article, nor able to sign his own comments, saying "diatribe" over and over and over again, without any substantiation.
6. What can you "say"? You can either cite some reliable third-party sources supporting a more charitable view of this petition or hold your peace.

Unless and until you actually develop the MOST BASIC COMPETENCE to (i) sign your comments & (ii) cite reliable third party sources in support of your claims, I really don't give the proverbial "pair of fetid dingo's kidneys" about your "observation"s. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. Respectfully, it's not the job of wikipedia to form personal opinions or forward agendas.

1.) The Website containing the quote about signatory qualifications is copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009. It's their document and their quote. What is disputed? Remove your "factual accuracy is disputed" we both know this information is 100% accurate, and sourced to the document's authors. You know it, I know it and the whole world deserves to know.

2.) Clearly the document confirms there is a dispute by certain qualified scientists regarding this subject. THIS IS NOT wikipedia's dispute.

3.) The document makes no claims whatsoever that need to be refuted in this article. Refutation of the Discovery Institute and signatories needs to go into the article about that organization or those people. Links to those articles here is warranted and useful.

4.)The following sections: "Responses" & "Expertise relevance" & "Other criticisms" & "Affiliations and credentials" & "Defections and disagreements" & "Counter-petitions" ARE ALL written as criticisms of Discovery Institute. That's a diatribe by any measure and off topic.

5.) There is only one section in this article not written as a diatribe. "Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document" merely gives a few sentences of facts regarding the document and sourced directly to the authors. I suspect the ONLY reason you are disputing it is because it's not a diatribe against the document. It just is.

Look at all the sources, all are from critics of that organization. I merely quote the document's author, and get jumped. And then I get the absurd assertion the document's author is not a reliable source? Does someone have a higher claim than the author?

Clean it up. People can see through these diatribes anyway, especially something as over-the-top as this is. It's doesn't even pretend to be without bias. This article deserves at best two or three concise paragraphs. Keeping it real the critics deserve one section not the whole article. lol. Mikearion (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We can use quotes from their site without putting copyright info directly after. I believe this is allowed via Fair Use. I agree that we should more clearly say that it is their claim that the qualifications are accurate, that there are known exceptions to that claim, and so on. However, we need to source that info, not assert it as though it is the conclusions of a wikipedia editor. Those are the primary grounds on which I reverted your edit... but I agree with it in theory. Regarding your other points...

2) Our reliable sources say this isn't the case, at least in any notable way. We therefore are allowed to report that the DI claims it's so, but we have an obligation to state that it's not accepted within the scientific community as being legitimate. WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE are two relevant policies here.

4) Not exactly. These concern the article topic specifically, and do belong.

6) The DI holds a fringe pseudoscientific view regarding Intelligent Design, of which this list is a part. Policy indicates that we have to give proper weight to the accepted scientific response to that view. It so happens to be that the response is largely critical, so it's to be expected that most of the article will be critical. If this seems unfair to you, you may be interested in discussing it further at the talk page for WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, or, most likely WP:FTN. Jess_talk|_edits 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I put the copyright in is because someone keeps disputing the source of the quote. If Discovery hold the copyright they own the quote. And yes fair use allows us to use the quote. It clearly belong in this article. Mikearion (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't dispute there are many critics of Discovery Institute. However, this article is about a document not Discovery Institute and thus is off topic for the article. Mikearion (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Unproductive blind reverting

I added some well-sourced material to this article yesterday and I'm not at all pleased to see that someone has blindly reverted the lot with a specious claim of "massive POV changes". That is nonsense, as a review of my changes, which you can see here, will show:

1. I added a statement by William A. Dembski, a prominent and senior figure at the DI, to illustrate how they are promoting the list. I don't agree with his view but it's a good illustration of the DI's spin.
2. I took out a couple of POV terms - "claiming" (a word to avoid) and "similarly confusing and misleading" (according to who?).
3. I added a couple of comments by Robert T. Pennock, a notable critic of ID.
4. I added mention of the website that was part of the DI's publicity campaign when it launched the list.
5. I added a description of how the NCSE sought to verify the views of the signatories.
6. I also made a couple of minor and completely uncontentious copyedits to tidy up grammar, wikilinks etc.

All of this is verifiable and well-sourced (from published books) and it is all reported in a neutral way. There is nothing POV about it. Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Dembski's ludicrous self-serving claim is WP:Complete bollocks. And as he's neither a historian of science nor a sociologist of science, he's hardly a WP:RS in (purported) shifts in the scientific consensus.
2. Teach the Controversy was described as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard" in the Dover decision -- describing it as a mere "claim" would thus seem WP:SPADE.

As to the other changes, I don't think I've got a problem with them, at least at first glance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Extreme POV edits. I reverted them, thank you very much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation from you of what is "POV" about them. Commentary from the NCSE? Or a notable academic critic of ID who testified in the Kitzmiller case? Or simple copyedits tidying up grammar and wording? Hrafn doesn't seem to have a problem with any of that so I'm sure he'd be equally interested to know what your objection is. Prioryman (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, of course the claim is complete bollocks. You're also right that he's neither a historian of science nor a sociologist of science. That's not the point. He's a senior DI figure, he undoubtedly was and is involved in promoting and organising the list, and his view of what it represents is a canonical illustration of the DI's spin on it. He's very much a reliable source for what the DI thinks about the list. Note that I quoted him in his capacity as a DI fellow, rather than any academic capacity.
2. "Claim" is a loaded word; see WP:CLAIM. I don't think we're supposed to pass judgement. You're right that the Dover decision deprecated Teach the Controversy, but although we might sympathise with that view, NPOV forbids us from endorsing it in the article. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Dembski is at best a WP:QS on the topic, and thus the statement is excluded by WP:ABOUTSELF as "unduly self-serving". Also, I've seen no evidence that Dembski is involved in the organisational side of the DI -- and would consider him tempermentally & geographically (he lives on the opposite side of the US) ill-suited to the task.
2. WP:CLAIM: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question" -- except that we already have a source explicitly calling the credibility of TtC into question.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, I've simply side-stepped the issue by using wording from the cited source -- which states Meyers "cited five considerations" -- one of which being the Dissent -- thus avoiding having to offer any opinion as to the (lack of) credibility of the claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Why would Dembski be a questionable source? He is a very prominent ID advocate and a fellow of the DI. Surely his view is a good example of how such people regard the list? He's wrong, of course, in what he says, but that's not the issue - if you applied WP:ABOUTSELF that literally you probably couldn't represent any pro-ID viewpoint. Don't forget I'm not endorsing what he says, merely reporting it.
2. Yes, we have a source calling the credibility of TtC into question, but the way it was worded made it seem that this article was itself casting doubt. I see you've changed the wording though, so I'm happy with how it is now. Prioryman (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Because he's (i) a purveyor of what are widely considered to be pseudoscientific (and pseudomathematical) claims (ii) he has a history of misrepresentation and dishonesty & (iii) (as stated above) he is not a legitimate expert on (purported) shifts in the scientific consensus. Any one of which would be sufficient. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient if I was quoting Dembski as a source of fact. What I was aiming to do was to illustrate his opinion about what the list represents. The aim of the list is, as I'm sure you're aware, to falsely present evolution as being "in crisis". The list wasn't just a one-off exercise - the DI has continued to promote it and get new signatures. Dembski's viewpoint is highly relevant as it indicates how the DI, and ID supporters more generally, are framing it. Perhaps it needs a better form of words; I'll come up with something and post it here for further discussion. Prioryman (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:ABOUTSELF does not distinguish between fact and opinion -- it states "as long as (1) the material is not unduly self-serving" (my emphasis). How it is being used is already blindingly obvious -- we really don't need to give WP:UNDUE weight to Dembski, who AFAIK has no official responsibility within the DI for the Dissent, to make a point that has already been made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others say. So far we've only heard from two people; others may have different views. In the meantime, since you have no problem with the other changes I made and we've had no actionable objections to them, I'll restore them with some amendments. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another piece by Wikipedia that obeys WP:NPOV by not giving WP:UNDUE weight to the religiously-motivated opinions of a "tiny minority" of largely misqualified academics

Its interesting that the article mentions that the list is rejected by the scientific community but offers no evidence or relevant citation. Its only irrelevant citation implies that a small group of people can arbitrarily speak for the entire scientific community, and leaves out the fact that the signers of the list themselves are members of the scientific community. As for the claim that some of the scientist listed are not active scientist anymore, is a little surprising since Eugenie Scott director of the NCSE and one of the most out spoken critics of the "Dissent from Darwin" list, as well as being one of the brain child's of the Steve list, is also not an active scientist herself, and hasn't been one for many years.

I also find it very interesting that this same scientific community that supposedly rejects this list and the Discovery Institute, is at least a part of that same scientific community that was supposedly dumb enough into being duped into signing a list entitle "Dissent from Darwinism" (which in itself should give one a clue) and put out by the same Discovery Institute its supposedly has also rejected. I'm not sure why Wikipedia would choose to point out that "Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States" without specifying the relevance of such a statement. What I find really amusing is that after all this bickering about which scientific field is qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, it then goes on to say that "The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community" So it seems to imply any scientist in the scientific community that endorses the neo Darwinian synthesis is qualified to do so authoritatively, but when it comes to dissenters only American biologist are relevant. Now if that really isn't the cats meow let me quote from this very same publication on an article about the same theory of Evolution and it goes as follows......"Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine" Does anyone see any restrictions on evolution to only biology? Another substandard article that doesn't pass the smell test. To the Management of Wikipedia, stop allowing the authors of these article to playing sides, and just give us the information we research unbiasedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So your argument against this article is basically a conspiracy theory that all these scientific organisations have been hijacked, against the wishes of the majority of their membership, by a small 'Evil Darwinist Conspiracy™'. The signers amount to a tiny minority of the academic community (cf Project Steve), few of whom have a qualification in a field relevant to evolutionary biology, and many of whom are not even scientists (mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, at least one economist and one butterfly photographer). Unless you can present evidence that this article misrepresents the scientific consensus against ID in general, and this thoroughly unscientific 'Dissent' in particular, you would appear to be just WP:SOAPBOXing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh hrafn, you're really showing your true colors here. What a pathetic non-sequitor. Nowhere did Benny refer to 'conspiracy theories' of any sort. He simply pointed out the illogical contradictions and double standards in the article for what they were. You are a rabid fanatical darwinist trolling every article related to this subject. That much is clear. You've proven that you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these types of articles. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Another voice, I come to Wikipedia to find information about a topic. This article is not information about the phenomena of the list of 700 intelligent people who dissagree publicly with Darwinian evolution as popularly understood, this article is a major attempt to belittle, discredit, and tar with a broad brush the List. I wouldn't mind an article that: a.) Started with the facts that this List exists. b.) The history of how it came to be and has been made public. c.) What the supporters of the List claim it means. d.) Then what opponents of the List complain about it, and their criticisms noted (but perhaps not eagerly defended with paragraph long quotes?). e.) Some sort of evaluation of its significance, or lack of significance to the ID movement and to the anti-ID movements.

Instead from the first paragraph, this article is in tone and volume an attempt to discredit the makers, the signers, and the validity for any intelligent group of people (PhDs) to question Darwinian orthodoxy. If I read for example an article on something I disagree with like Mormonism, I expect to read first about its claims and what its proponents suggest for it. Then I am prepared to read about what anti-Mormons object to and quesion or dispute, then perhaps how Mormonism answers those disputes.

In this article all I read is multiple criticisms of the List, with minimal exposure to the proponents of the List. This article feels like it was written by Richard Dawkins, or Eugenie Scott. It is not fair, balanced, or unbiased by any possible standard. Please give us an article with both sides. Pretending that there is only one side to truth is the beginning of the monomania this article displays.Jhoehn (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

--Most pages on ID, ID proponents and ID think tanks, organizations on wikipedia are more biased attack pieces than neutral articles explaining its subject. I'd probably be labeled an ID apologist, creationist or fundamentalist just for saying that but fact is I'm none of those things and have no religious affiliation. However, I did visit the ID wiki page to see what ID is all about and I could not because that page, at least when I visited, did not explain what it is and what it's proponents claim but rather ranted on why it is wrong. Same thing with many articles of ID proponents like Dembski; it says nothing of Dembski's career, work and ideas but rather represents his ideas and work through the eyes of those who attack him as if they're objective and agenda free in their claims about him. This wiki article is similarly biased, spending no time laying out why the Petition's authors dissent or presenting their perspective in any objective, neutral way but rather spends about a third setting the dissenters up as ideologically-driven manipulators and liars who misuse terms and fabricate confusing petitions, citing the opinion of opponents as proof, and the rest of the article basically presents rebuttals to the Petition. For example, it says 'Darwinism' is 'a term "intelligent design proponents" use to refer to evolution,' and cites as evidence for this claim opponents of ID. However, Darwinism, Darwinian and similar terms are commonly used by secular and atheist scientists and opponents of ID, including evolutionary biologists like Dawkins. The article claims the Petition was circulated to discredit evolution, again citing ID opponents as sources for this claim. However, the purpose of the Petition is not to discredit anything but the idea that the current evolutionary model is beyond reproach. Sure dissent may be minimal but mass support for something does not mean it is correct. Similarly, ID proponents and organizations, like the Discovery Institute, throughout the article are represented not from a neutral perspective but from the biased eyes of their opponents. Take this example: "The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..." Of course the claim that they are "confusing and misleading" is made by ID opponents whose opinions and views are presented throughout this article as if they themselves are free of ideological/philosophical biases. However, this article cites, among others, PZ Myers, a man who calls Francis Collins "a clown" and "a flaming idjit," yes that's how he spelled it, and questioned his qualifications as a legitimate scientist and challenged his appointment as NIH director just for being Christian. This despite nothing in the history of Collins' professional career on which doubts for about his integrity or qualifications may be rationally placed. There are, of course, further examples showing this article to be an attack piece but it's pointless to go on since it won't change a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.216.229 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE for discussion of how to present such views in a neutral way. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)