Jump to content

Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BENNY BALLEJO (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 25 June 2011 (→Another hit piece by Wikipedia.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCreationism Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


"Darwinism" vs. actual quote "Darwinian theory"

Is anyone in favor of preserving this misquote "Darwinism" vs. the real quote "Darwinian Theory"? Where did the quote coming from?

PER THE ARTICLE: "The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term "intelligent design proponents" use to refer to evolution.[1][2]"

THE ACTUAL STATEMENT QUOTE IS: "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Mikearion (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Claims

A portion of the section Affiliations and Credentials must be deleted as it contains an unverified claim. The statement "Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists" has no accompanying citation. Snoopydaniels (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could alternatively have labelled it up with {{fact|date=August 2010}} to draw attention to this. As it happens, I believe that the statement can be supported since I thought that the list is known to contain both retired scientists and non-scientists. Whether "Many of those ..." is justified is up for grabs, however. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


From mikearion back at you:

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

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???

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.

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

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ASKED AND ANSWERED: "reliable third party" sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) ~[reply]

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)[reply]


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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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. Jesstalk|edits 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is being disputed in 'Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document' ?

Everything is that section is 100% sourced and confirmed. The source of the quote from Discovery Institute is from their website copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009. [2].

Cease reverting the section or prove the source is not accurate. You are engaging in edit warring and it's violation of wikipidia. Return the last edit I'm not leaving I will stand on principle we all know what you are doing is wrong. There are plenty of forums to vent your grips against that organization wikipedia is not the place to do that. Mikearion (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need people to cease edit warring on that section. If you have a reason to change let talk about it here. Explain what's wrong and what needs to be changed and I'll change it. Stop removing valid information without justification. It's all sourced and accurate 100% unless you can prove otherwise. Mikearion (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of this article I'm leaving "copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009" in to eliminate frivolous disputes. It's not against wikipedia guidlines. The copyright is taken directly from the website and is a legal public announcement by Discovery Institute.Mikearion (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikearion, you are being reverted by multiple editors. Re-inserting the content into the article despite their objections is considered edit warring. Please try to assume good faith - we all want this article to be accurate and reflect the best information available. I'll reiterate a couple points I made above. Inserting copyright information as you have, I believe, is against policy, and in either case it is irrelevant to the content. Terms like Darwinism should be linked and not substituted, as they are relevant to the content. The other information in the article which you say criticizes DI is pertinent to the topic, and per policy (including WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE), we must include it alongside their claims. If you have further questions regarding those policies, I would suggest asking at WP:FTN, where you will have a larger audience of experienced editors. Again, I agree with a few of your edits in theory, but they need to be cleaned up in the ways I've pointed out before being included. Jesstalk|edits 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Again, I agree with a few of your edits in theory, but they need to be cleaned up in the ways I've pointed out before being included." OK then what? Obviously completely deleting my previous edit is rude and isn't helpful. Fix it or LEAVE IT. Take the copyright information out since that's all you are disputing.

Also, I corrected a misquote of the document and you reverted it. Why? Nowhere in the document is the word "Darwinism" used. Nowhere! From what source is it being quoted? That is self research.

It's hard for me to believe you care about the accuracy of this article, you are simply edit warring me and you need to stop. Wikipedia is not majority rules it's truth and accuracy rules. The document DOES NOT say "Darwinism" anywhere. SHOW ME WHERE IN THAT DOCUMENT IT SAYS "DARWINISM". The article quotes it as saying "DARWINISM" BUT IT'S NOT IN THERE! It needed to be corrected. Why did you revert it to something YOU KNOW is FALSE and inaccurate? Please Read the document. It clearly says "Darwinian Theory". Nowhere is the word "Darwinism" ever used. Who came up with that quote?

You see that's the problem I have. Nobody here cares about wikipedia, honesty or accuracy. Go do something useful with you life and stop posting junk on wikipedia. I consider what you are doing vandalism. I post on topic information directly related to the article with sources listed and confirmed. Mikearion (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


@JESS

The copyright notice is removed from the section per your objection. If you have any other objections to the accuracy of the section please in good faith write me here first and discuss. Do not edit war and delete that information again. Mikearion (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw, this article is actually a fallacy. Instead of an article about the document it is a diatribe against the Discovery Institute organization. The entire article is an apparent attempt to discredit the signatories of the document by running a tirade against the organization that first commissioned it. But the document is it's own entity and the people that signed it are mostly not members of the organization being ranted on. But you cannot refute a document by it's ownership. And why attempt to do so on a wikipedia "article"? Mikearion (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikearion You're treating this article as a battleground, rather than working collaboratively to include the content you want. The copyright info is not the only thing I objected to, which I feel I was relatively clear about. The biggest issue is wording the section to give undue weight to the idea that the assertions of the DI are accurate. They are not, and should be presented as such. Additionally, after a quick re-skim of the article, lots of that information is already there. There's no need to repeat things multiple times. I second Guettarda's suggestion. Please hash the discussion out here first before reintroducing it. Lastly, please be aware that, per WP:3RR, if you reintroduce the content again, you may be blocked from editing. Please just discuss it here calmly and we'll see what can be done. Jesstalk|edits 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Consensus first

I removed the section - there's clearly no consensus for its inclusion. Hash out something we can all agree on here before re-inserting it. Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, exactly what wording is giving undue weight to the idea of ID? Please be precise. I didn't make any commentary on ID just quoted the authors of the document. This article is about that document correct? Here is my proposed inclusion. Let me hear your objections and ideas to improve this article.

And as far as consensus I'm bumping heads with people that apparently have personal a dog in the fight and shouldn't be editing or writing here at all. The most basic information about this document I had to find elsewhere when it should have been here. That not good. The only reason I'm still here, if I come across an article that is clearly missing something I try to fix it for the next poor soul.

But I'm willing to discuss this at length. Tell me exactly the wording you object to and your suggestions.Mikearion (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we insert it back into the article exactly as worded below but place it at the top since it is the most basic information about the document. All the rest of the stuff in the article appears to belong in other articles about the Discovery Institute or in an ID article. Mikearion (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document

(OK LET'S GO WORD BY WORD)

1.) The document is maintained, published and updated by the Discovery Institute.[1]. (CAN EVERYONE AGREE THIS IS FACTUAL?)

2.) Although their website claims to require a Ph.D or M.D. degree to sign there appears to be exceptions on their list as of January 2010. Notably exception is Bernard d'Abrera who holds a Bachelor of Arts, with a double major in History & Philosophy of Science and History and diploma in Education (Melbourne T.C., 1972). (CAN EVERYONE AGREE THIS IS FACTUAL?)

3.) Quote from the Discovery Institute Maintained Website [2]: (CAN WE ALL CONFIRM THIS IS TRUE?)

4.) "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:" (IS THIS A QUOTE FROM THE AUTHORS OF THE DOCUMENT PER THEIR PUBLISHED WEBSITE TO INVITE SIGNERS?)

5.)"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." (IS THIS WHAT THE AUTHORS REQUIRE SIGNERS TO AGREE TO?)

Mikearion (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Already covered in lead (which mentions the DI three times) -- duplicative and therefore unnecessary.
  2. FALSE not FACTUAL -- and d'Abrera is not the only exception. Tony Prato's PhD is in Agricultural Economics. Stephen C. Meyer's in Philosophy of Science. David Berlinski's in Philosophy. Tom McMullen's in the History and Philosophy of Science. Angus Menuge's in Philosophy of Psychology. Bruce L. Gordon's in the Philosophy of Physics. Anthony Reynolds's in the Philosophy of Science, etc, etc.
  3. WP:QS used for a false (and therefore "unduly self-serving") claim -- therefore fails WP:SELFPUB.
  4. FALSE not FACTUAL -- see (2)
  5. Blatantly duplicative -- this already has a whole section devoted to it. So why repeat it here?

But then you've been told all this before Mikearion -- you simply WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, just to reiterate this point ad nauseum, even if everything you said was factual, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to include. There are weight concerns, structural ones, referential ones, WP:NPOV ones, and so forth. You're taking the wrong tact to including this content. Arguing whether or not it's factual is missing the point. Jesstalk|edits 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you repeat yourself ad nauseum. I want your proposed edit you promised to discuss. And yes Steven Meyer and the rest ALL have a Ph.D. That means Doctor of Philosophy and if your Ph.D. is in Science it means you are a scientist of the highest caliber. So can we now quote them about their own bleeding document? And why did you delete my last talk? You say you want to discuss but you don't. Enough of this. The quote goes back stop the edit war, you didn't even know a Ph.D means Doctor of Philosophy you shouldn't edit this article at all. It's a higher degree than M.D. btw. Mikearion (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section with authors quote is shortened to include just their quote and mention of the fact not all signers meet the Ph.D requirement. It's the MOST BASIC INFORMATION about that document and should be at the very top of the article. It's their document and they are the highest authority regarding document. No more edit warring there is nothing of mine in there to object to only the author's own word exactly quoted. The people opposing the quote didn't even know what a Ph.D is and shouldn't even be here on this article. Mikearion (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a PhD does not make you a "scientist of the highest calibre" - it doesn't make you a scientist at all. You can earn a Ph.D. in a whole host of fields, not just science. And no, it doesn't make you a "scientist of the highest calibre" - for a working scientist, having a PhD is pretty much an entry-level requirement. As for the rest - using primary sources is discouraged. We are supposed to rely on secondary and tertiary sources produced by independent third parties. That's especially true when you are dealing with a body like that DI, which has a history of making dubious claims. Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with multiple comments above; tendentiously adding disputed material against consensus is no way to improve this article. WP:WEIGHT issues need to be resolved before consideration of adding this information. Yobol (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said Ph.D in science but that's besides the point. Explain why the author of the document should not be quoted as the most basic information about this article? Are we Nazis that burn books too? Why censor the authors themselves? What justification? And primary source is a good source. However, if you can find some other entity or person repeating the quote I would not object to including such reference. Mikearion (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the "consensus" canard there are three people here two of which are likely the same person. Only one of us even knew what a Ph.D is being myself.Mikearion (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about Meyer, who while he's a very nice person, doesn't have a PhD in science. You appeared to be conflating science and non-science PhDs. And then you made an erroneous statement about what a PhD in science entails. I would appear that you don't understand the underlying terminology, and understanding what a PhD actually is, and what it means to a working scientist is important if you want to contribute to this particular topic. Otherwise you'll simply be led astray by the DI's spin. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to "consensus" - four different editors have reverted your change. So even if the IP isn't you, that's still the majority of active editors here. Even if it were just 2 for and 2 against, that's still not consensus. (Please read Wikipedia:Consensus). In the absence of consensus for change, things stay the way they were to begin with, before the change was proposed. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with coming to a consensus. However, I'm the only one willing to propose a solution and nobody is offering alternatives. Talk to me and propose a solution to including the most information about this document. Do not continue to vandalize and edit war. Edit do not destroy. Mikearion (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've admitted that the IP is you. So you're the only one arguing for inclusion. And you've clearly broken the three-revert rule. But, for starters - do you understand why Meyer is not a "science PhD"? Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get a grip on something. It does not matter if Meyer is a homeless man that didn't finish high school. Appeal to authority is a fallacy if DI does it, if I do it or if you do it. The point is THEY are authors of this document. Doesn't make anything else true about the document. They have published some very basic things about the document the most basic of which is who is allowed to sign it. This is per them the author. There is no dispute this is valid information basic to the document's foundation. From my perspective you are attempting to censor basic information about this document, there is no other explanation. Solutions please.Mikearion (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have conformed to every single objection to the inclusion of this section stripping the entire section down to just the quote and a disclosure that in fact not all the signers are Ph.Ds. There is nothing left to object to unless your true objective is to censor the words of the document's authors. Fact. Mikearion (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikearion no, you haven't "conformed to every single objection", because the information you included which wasn't outright false, was objected to on the grounds that it is redundant. It's already covered in the article. The entire section is being objected to - and reintroducing it is going against consensus. I'm sorry this has been a frustrating process for you, but going about fixing it the way you are is not appropriate, and not going to spur any change. Jesstalk|edits 01:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
block evasion

That information isn't redundant it appears nowhere in the article. Let's not kid ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@mikearion I 100% agree with you on the inclusion of that information. I've been reading the objections and I see no basis to exclude that information. However, before I revert I would like to hear some other comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@mikearion btw, there should have been a consensus before deleting pertinent information. As far a I can tell the only objection at this point is it's redundant. Perhaps the statement itself but that fits in with the context of the quote. But if that's all that needs to be removed than let's do that....talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@mikearion Hello you there?

Two in favor of the inclusion. How many objections?

@Mann_jess I cannot find that DI quote in the article how is it redundant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did everyone abandoned the discussion? Or did you all get blocked for edit waring over this fun discussion lol. ok I agree with mikearion in that the information belongs in the article but i don't think it should have it's own section. likely belongs under the "statement" header. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, a new IP shows up agreeing with the editwarring and recently blocked editor. How completely unsuspicious. Yobol (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have agree in part. The requirement quote I couldn't find in the article and the only objection is redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.231.141 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Another hit piece by Wikipedia.

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.

  1. ^ A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (current)
  2. ^ Dissent From Darwinism website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism&oldid=436106560"