Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Much more material in this previous version. Why was it deleted? (surely not to diminish the writer, I hope). Uncle Ed 11:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

HIV Denial

Aside from blogs like this what reason is there to believe that Wells is an HIV denier?

Sounds like a contributor here is trying to undermine Wells's credibility. It would be nice if they could provide a quotation from something Wells has written or said. --Uncle Ed 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No answer having been given to the question, I've deleted the unsourced claim.

He is a prominent supporter of Intelligent design and also questions the role of HIV in causing AIDS.

Perhaps bloggers were confusing him with Phillip Johnson. --Uncle Ed 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. A quick Google brought up this list, "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" , which may be one reason that Wells is considered an "HIV denier". That's about the limit of my knowledge, so after adding that source I'll depart. -Will Beback 05:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Hi, Will. I followed your link and found Wells's name misspelled on it. I wonder if he really signed it.
2. Is there a difference between denying the existence of the HIV/AIDS and asking for a reappraisal of the evidence? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Its close to the same difference between teaching intelligent design and "teaching the controversy." JoshuaZ 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Teckor, When you removed the HIV part you left in the link. I have removed it in addition to my other edits. JoshuaZ 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reappraisal of the evidence" is a common phrase used by Holocaust Deniers (as well as HIV deniers). These people always always attempt to make themselves seem as reasonable and believable as possible and use phrasing that masks what their true stance. Everyone else can see through that ploy though, and, we call HIV, and Holocaust deniers as such, deniers, not as "revisionists" or whatever else they want to be called.

Second, the list quoted has "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" which seems to be the guy's actual name. --Havermayer 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Biologist?

He's a biologist. He has a Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology from a prestigious university and he has published papers. Also, he debates biologists about the naturalist history of life.

Why do people try to present him as a person who is ideologically motivated?

The presence of a Ph.D. does not make one a biologist, nor does having two papers. Period. As for the ideological motivation, the relevant quote is right in the article "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." JoshuaZ 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I want him to be called a biologist. In return, you could call him a pseudoscientist (which he is) so put that tag too.

Also, Peter Duesberg is listed as a "biologist." Do you consider him a biologist with his views?

As to your first comment- absolutely not. There is no reason to compromise on facts here, Wells is not a biologist. Note in contrast by the way that Duesberg has a multitude of biology papers (not just two) and actually has taught a variety of bio related courses. Disagreement with their views is not the issue. Productivity as a biologist is. JoshuaZ 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wells pretends to be a biologist. In reality he's a full time Christian apologist who goes round speaking at churches across the USA. — Dunc|☺ 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Kent Hovind. Jonathan Wells posts his work at the Discovery Institute's website. Wells is not a Christian, but a Moonie. Also any reference about his appearences in churches?

This quote shows that he doesn't think Unificationism = Christianity:

"The result, however, is completely different. Before the fall, a sinless person following such a course could have fulfilled the First Blessing by reaching individual perfection; after the fall, a person following such a course cannot even return to the state of original sinlessness, much less achieve individual perfection. (Like Christianity, Unificationism considers fallen people incapable of ridding themselves of sin.) What the prescribed course does, instead, is to distance the person from Satan's dominion, and to lay a conditional foundation upon which God can act."

In his most recent book he had no problem identifying with "traditional Christianity" in any event the basic point that he is an apologist not a biologist is accurate. JoshuaZ 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wells has a legitimate biology degree. In my book, that makes his a biologist, no matter his religious beliefs. Is there some other definition we should be using instead? I understand where the objection is coming from, but saying that he's not really a biologist because he's an ID proponent is NPOV. Is the Surgeon General not a doctor because he doesn't see patients anymore? eaolson 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to explain earlier the reason he isn't a biologist isn't because of his religious beliefs. He isn't a biologist because all he has are two minors papers to his credit and his Ph.D. That doesn't make him a biologist. JoshuaZ 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If a person is trained as a biologist, then it seems to me he is a biologist even if he has never written anything. An M.D. is a medical doctor even if he never does research, writes or practices medicine in any form. That is his training and part of an accurate description. Doc ♬ talk 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. For an MD it would not be accurate to just say that such a person is a doctor. A lack of any medical work would be an important point. And unlike in medicine, in math or the sciences one can be in that category without an end level degree in that area (an example would be the mathematician Andrew Casson who does not have Ph.D. (hmm, we really should have an article on him. I'm surprised we don't but a google search should give you the idea). In these areas what you are doing determines what you are, not what degrees you have (and you will note this is for instance consistent with the defintion given at biologist and other articles for types of scientists). JoshuaZ 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Autobiographical claims in Icons

I'd like to say that I've read Jonathan Wells's book "Icons of Evolution", and I am going to be editing certain sections stating that he is a prominent ID supporter seeing as that he made it very clear in his book that he is not. Rather that he was simply trying to make sure that science remains emperical. Also, information that he himself got his degree to disprove evolution I will also remove since he seems to differ in his book. User:Teckor 20:41 March 2, 2006 ````Teckor

Teckor, please hold off on these edits until a few of us can look over the relevant citations. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, had a chance to look at it. 1) Wells is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, so what evidence do you have that he isn't an IDer other than his own say so? This is interrelated to the fact that the reference for why he got his second PhD is to an essay by him. At most it would possibly make sense to note that he has contradicted himself in his book over what his motivations/intentions were. JoshuaZ 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sry about not holding off. Joshua, would you mind citing the essay where you were given the impression that he is an IDer. User:Teckor 20:47 March 2, 2006

Sorry if I didn't make my meaning clear. Let me try and rephrase: In the essay which is cited in the article already-[2] he seems to say that he did get his second PhD to help defeat Darwinism. If he said otherwise in Icons, that is hardly surprising given what the book is about. Given these details and his other problems with Icons, it is not reasonable to trust his description of himself there as not being an IDer. The best evidence that he is an IDer is that he is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Between that and the fact that most of the arguments in Icons are standard ID arguments, it is hard to not label him as an IDer. JoshuaZ 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Wells is very fond of the word "design" (again see the earlier essay) which is further reason to call him an IDer. JoshuaZ 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, last such comment: here [3] and here [4] Wells seems to be fine self identifying as an IDer. I think that settles that matter. JoshuaZ 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the enlightenment. I was missunderstanding Mr. Wells's wording.Teckor 16:14 March 3, 2006

Disambiguation

A separate page for disambiguation is not necessary for one other name which can be noted as at the top of the page. Also this page is named as this persons common usage which is correct. Doc 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• An anonymous editor from a non-static IP keeps adding a disambig link to David Wells. That seems unnecessary to me and to the other editors that keep removing it. Perhaps this anon editor could explain here his reason for putting it in the article? Is there some link between the two Wellses that I'm not familiar with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaolson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do have the same last name and I always get them confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.10 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have trouble confusing two persons by the name last name of Wells, then I'm afraid you need more than DAB. Wells is a fairly common last name, it is not possible to link to everyone with that surname. Doc ♬ talk 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. listing all of these people would be absurd. eaolson 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited info on his opinions on AIDS

I just removed it. Here is the webpage that was given as a cite: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis His name was not on the list of signers, nor was it on the board of directors or anywhere else that I could find. The petition was only asking that a paper be published, although it seems reasonable to guess that the signers are AIDS revisionists. Steve Dufour 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? His name is right at the bottom of the list: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" [5] I'm restoring your deletion, and please be more careful next time, looking at your history, you seem to delete quite a lot of relevent information from your your fellow church members articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the list and did not see it anywhere. Was it removed? There are 3 other people with the name Wells. Besides that fact that he signed the letter (if he did) does not prove he is an AIDS revisionist, although he might well be for all I know (he also might have signed it as a favor to a friend or something like that). Steve Dufour 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I am a member of the Unification Church; as is Wells whom I have never met. I am not an AIDS revisionist, in this I am in the great majority among church members I know. I also believe that God used the principle of natural selection in the creation of life, including humans. In this I am probably in the minority of church members. Just for your information. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not looking hard enough. Look again, Wells is there: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" I'm restoring it yet again, and you need to stop removing properly cited content. FeloniousMonk 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Besides that fact that he signed the letter (if he did) does not prove he is an AIDS revisionist" Are you kidding me? Read what the page says.[6] Wells' HIV denial is well-known. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I missed it. You still need to find more documentation if he is notable for that, it seems to me. Steve Dufour 09:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems tome that the cite in question meets WP:V and WP:RS, thus it's fine as it is. •Jim62sch• 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, made a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard but I think that this article is well-sourced. I have however a small complaint about a sentence in the summary on ID and Hiv re-appraisal that classifies them both as unscientific. This sentences is I think inappropriate in a very specific article. Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects. Andries 18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mention it because Wells touts his science credentials while at the same time supports views that run counter to that of mainstream science. And not just fringe views, but views that the scientific community says are pseudoscience. That being so, the NPOV policy provision on dealing with pseudoscience and science, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, says specifically "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]What do you mean by "Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects"?

As for the pseudoscience cat & mention - Wells is an active proponent to two distinct pseudoscientific theories. Outside of that fact he is not notable. Guettarda 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I still have my doubts about the question whether it is okay to digress here on pseudoscientism, though I admit that your argument makes sense. I do not dispute that scientific POV should have majority space in the articles Intelligent Design and AID re-appraisal, but I doubt whether this is the place for it. In this article his POV should be described. What I mean with Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects is for example that an article on a communist should not digress on criticism of communism. Andries 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another example of my principle that Specific articles deal with specific contents. General articles should deal with general subjects is that articles on a specific religion should not digress on general criticism or general advantages of religion. Andries 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point now. But as I see this, this is a matter of making a connection between commonalities. "He is known for X and Y. They are both a subset of Z." One could launch into a discussion on Chris Mooney's book at this point. That digression, while providing an interesting context, should not be developed in this article. Guettarda 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To Guettarda's point, please read this: [7] (PDF) FeloniousMonk 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia editors make a connection that the sources, as far as I can see, do not make? I admit that I have not read all the sources, but until now I have not seen him being described as engaged in two branches in pseudoscience. Andries 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that his believe in the two philosophies is well-sourced, and both the intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal pages say they are pseudoscience. So I don't see the problem. eaolson 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, but as I said, it is only a small matter. Andries 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that shows that he is notable for AIDS denial, or whatever its called. A name on a petition does not mean that you are a notable member of that field of thought. Gamaliel 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, [8] FeloniousMonk 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced. This seems to warrant inclusion. Might want to drop a note at WP:BLP/N with this too. Gamaliel 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

After checking out some of the links the facts given in the article seem to me to be pretty accurate. However I think it would be a much more effective article if its tone was a little more neutral. But that's just my opinion. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

more uncited info

I removed this:

Wells dropped out of his undergraduate geology course. In 1964 Wells was conscripted into the US Army and served for two years. In 1967 he was recalled as a reservist, but refused, was court-marshalled and jailed for a year and a half[7].

No citation was given for his dropping out of the geology class, if there is put it back in. A link to a NYT story was given for the information on his army record, however both Johathan and Wells are common names so there is no evidence given that these are the same person. Again if there is evidence put it back in the article if you like. Was he protesting against the Viet Nam war or what? Steve Dufour 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ. Did the NYT article say why he refused to serve? Did he say he was protesting the war? If that was the reason I think it should be mentioned in the article. Can I change "conscripted" to "drafted" which was by far the more common term used at that time? Steve Dufour 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and mentioned that 1967 was during the time of the Vietnam war. Some of the younger readers might not know that, or it might not come to mind. I have no way to know if he was protesting the war or was afraid to go over there or if he had some other reason altogether for refusing active service. Still I don't think there should be a problem with mentioning the fact that the war was going on. It might even make the article a little more interesting. Steve Dufour 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

my additions removed

I added this to the section on "Background":

Some time after this he joined the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon.... He has written extensively on Unification theology, and since 1981 has taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary.

I honestly don't see what the problem with this is that caused someone to remove it. Steve Dufour 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll try putting it back.Steve Dufour 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't see what's wrong with that either. No idea why it was removed. JoshuaZ 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I put it back in 2 days ago. •Jim62sch• 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it back again. I would think that the information on his church membership and activities would support the main theme of the article which, it seems to me, is that he is a religious crusader pretending to be a scientist. Steve Dufour 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see a theme to the article, but if there is one, that might be a cause for concern. On the other hand, it may be that a neutral presentation of the facts leads you to conclude that. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would "central idea" be better than "theme"? Steve Dufour 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"apemen"

This didn't sound very scientific so I changed it to "early humans". Would another expression be better? Steve Dufour 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole sentence:

"The drawing, by Rudy Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows the sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of apemen, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right."

I think it could be improved. At least "a sequence of primates" rather than "the sequence of primates". Steve Dufour 23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) - went ahead and changed that

OK -- because there are actually several series once one gets past the point where humans and chimps separated. •Jim62sch• 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also lots of sequences of primates which don't lead to humans at all.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give "human ancestors" a try as a replacement for "apemen". Steve Dufour 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with hominids. •Jim62sch• 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That works for me.  :-) Steve Dufour 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

I'm sure he was not born in 1956 if he was drafted into the army in 1964. My guess would be that he was born in 1946 and someone got one number wrong when they repeated it. Steve Dufour 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the NYT says he was 25 in 1968. That would make him born in 1942 0r 1943. I have added this to the article. Steve Dufour 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Creationist"

There is no discussion here of the apparently inappropriate label "creationist" for Wells. Critics may sometimes try to conflate the two in order to discredit ID, but my understanding is that ID people see the the two as very distinct. A Google search for the exact phrase "intelligent design is not creationism" returned over 500 pages. If no one makes a compelling argument in a timely manner that ID and creationism are identical, I will move the page. -Exucmember 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a reference, but one source asserts that Wells has identified himself as an old-earth creationist. While I agree that ID and creationism are not necessarily synonymous, there is some overlap. Justin Eiler 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. :)

However, in the article “Evolution by Design,” (1997), Wells describes his belief that the transitions between species have been designed by special creation and have not occurred by common descent, and that the ultimate purpose has been to build a suitable environment on Earth for the eventual creation of human beings. (Emphasis added)

Cite. Hope that helps. :) Justin Eiler 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by a "compelling argument". The article cites excellent sources, as do other ID-related sources. The fact that ID is creationism is well established. Why do you consider these references completely worthless? Guettarda 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. What do you think this is anyway? Science?  ;-) Steve Dufour 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is more about name-calling than providing biographical info. It would be better to label him an "evolution critic" or something like that. Roger 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the major editors of this article are thinking. It would be much more effective to just give the plain facts about him and trust the readers to make up their own minds. Steve Dufour 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? What about the article isn't "just giv[ing] the plain facts"? Guettarda 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance the 7 footnotes to the mention of ID being pseudoscience and the long story about him going to the hearings in Kansas. Steve Dufour 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reset)

Steve, the reason for the multiple footnotes on the pseudoscience mention is because pro-ID editors would come in and remove the statement--regardless of the fact that it's true. Every time they were chided for it, they said "Oh, you've only got one source or two sources." The multiple footnotes are to establish incontrovertable proof that mainstream science considers ID to be pseudoscience. Justin Eiler 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say that Wells has enemies who engage in childish name-calling, and let the reader check the references for himself? Roger 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, the folks who were removing cited information were supporters of Wells, not "enemies." Justin Eiler 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it is the enemies of Wells who put childish name-calling into the article about Wells. The article should be just a biography of Wells, not a bibliography on evolutionists who hate ID. Roger 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is not the only pseudo-scientist whose views are clearly called such. See Category:Pseudoscience for more. Justin Eiler 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which gives a gonzo feeling to their articles too. Steve Dufour 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the Pseudoscience page and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, you'll find some really silly discussions about what is or is not a pseudoscience. The editors cannot find a workable definition. Roger 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However it left out Marxist economic theory. Steve Dufour 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If I could bring the discussion back to the narrow topic of the article title, the suggestion that "evolution critic" describes Wells more accurately than "creationist" seems to have merit. Doesn't he write more along the lines of criticizing evolution than trying to promote intelligent design (which is not exactly the same as creationism anyway)? -Exucmember 06:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "creationist" you mean someone who believes the Bible accounts of creation literally he is certainly not one. Steve Dufour 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's "biblical literalist". Guettarda 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "creationist" merely mean that a person believes there is a God who created the Universe? Steve Dufour 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are any editors here of the honest opinion that Wells writings have more to do with promoting Creationism than criticizing Darwinism? Even if there are, the Creationism article makes it quite clear that the label normally means something quite different from what Wells believes. Thus the label is misleading in Wells' case. -Exucmember 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my first sentence above. I made a blanket request for "honest opinion[s]," a common phrase asking people to make a well-considered and completely neutral judgement. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "well-considered and completely neutral judgement" instead. Guettarda decided that he would assume bad faith, but also go well beyond this to claim that I made a personal attack, and then go one step further to delete my comment. (Apparently he thought my comment was so offensive that other users should be spared having to see it; I hope I have clarified that I did not mean anything at all critical of anyone, and have restored the sentence.) He also created a section on my Talk page entitled "Your personal attacks" (notice that he uses plural), and makes the out-of-context accusation: "Calling your fellow editors "dishonest" is totally unacceptable. Please desist." He also chides me on my Talk page with the admonition "assume good faith"! His statements on my Talk page are so misleading that, well, one might mistake them for a personal attack! -Exucmember 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For someone to ask for "honest opinons" can only mean that opinions to the contrary are dishonest. Thus, you called me (and other editors) dishonest. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. Your alternative "well-considered and completely neutral judgement" is no better, because you are calling me a non-neutral POV pusher. It's a massive failure to assume good faith, and a totally unwarranted personal attack. You said "I did not mean anything at all critical of anyone" and yet you (a) re-inserted your attack, and (b) added new ones. You then go on to call it a personal attack that I had the gall to point out to you that it is unacceptable for you to call me a dishonest POV-pusher. WP:NPA is Wikipedia policy. You are not free to ignore it. Guettarda 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No. No editors honestly believe that. This article is written for name-calling, not as an honest biography. Besides "creationist", it uses "pseudoscience", "low level of output", "denies the mainstream", etc. It ought to just describe his significant public positions, and leave out the inaccurate and unnecessary name-calling. Roger 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It also seems like the editors here don't trust people to think for themselves. Steve Dufour 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, who was being personally attacked by those comments? I was discussing the personal attacks against J. Wells in the article. If you are really opposed to personal attacks, then you should agree with me that some of the personal attacks on Wells should be removed. Roger 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger, your accusations of dishonesty against your fellow Wikipedia editors constitute a violation of our policy on personal attacks. Please read the policy. Guettarda 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty. Why would you say that? Okay, I think I see why you are saying that. I was just expressing my opinion on the inappropriate name-calling in the article. Roger 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that the no personal attacks policy refers to personal attacks on other editors, not the subject of the article. Properly sourced critical terms aren't in violation. eaolson 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let's try and assume a little good faith here people. "Honest Opinion" is a phrase that, at least where I live, gets used all the time and does not necessarily denote an assumption of dishonesty on the part of others. Calling that a personal attack is a bit of a stretch I think. I realize this is a touchy subject with strong opinions on both sides, but try to keep WP:COOL and not add a discussion of the semantics of a phrase to the argument.--Isotope23 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Honest opinion" is a very common phrase in my experience also. I explained my use of it. I didn't mean anything even in the slightest way critical. Ironically, it was just a gentle urging to come in from the polarization and be thoughtful and well-considered, so that we could arrive at a consensus that is best for the readers, that has the best chance of being fair, neutral, accurate, etc. I was quite surprised at the repeated and persistent assumption of bad faith, twisting of my meaning, and attributing things to me that I did not say. I also was accused even more virulently - not here, in context - but also on my personal Talk page, which certainly felt to me as though I were being attacked, and for no reason. -Exucmember 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to start a discussion which requested that people use a well-considered and completely neutral judgement to decide whether they think Wells' writings have more to do with promoting Creationism than criticizing Darwinism. Those editors who believe that this is objectively true after careful consideration and judgement from a neutral point of view should make there arguments here. I'm just asking for people to be fair and objective. I have very little stake here in what seems to be a very polarized debate, except to move the article toward a little more accuracy where I believe I noticed a deficiency. -Exucmember 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Might it make sense to move this to Jonathan Wells (anti-evolutionist or something similar, thus avoiding the issue? JoshuaZ 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is a leading proponent of intelligent design, a form of creationism. He isn't a critic of evolution outside of a very narrow creationist agenda. "Creationist" is far more common than "anti-evolutionist", which is a bit of a neologism. Descriptors should use simple and straightforward language. While "creationist", "anti-evolutionist" and "intelligent design proponent" are all accurate descriptors, "creationist" is concise and accurate, and unlike the alternatives is neither jargony nor a neologism. You move an article to a better title, not a worse one. Guettarda 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was made, and an implied "seconding" of the motion, that the article be moved to "Jonathan Wells (evolution critic)." Without commenting on that proposal the alternative "Jonathan Wells (anti-evolutionist)" was proposed and is being discussed, so I suppose both proposals are on the table. Personally, I think "evolution critic" is more accurate. Wells is not completely opposed to evolution; he accepts two of what he calls the three pillars of Darwinian evolution.

One reason that I believe "creationist" is inaccurate is that it usually means something to most people these days that simply does not accurately describe Wells' position.

Wikipedia's page on Creationism says:

In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of Christian fundamentalism in which the books of Genesis are held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth. It therefore conflicts with the more allegorical theological interpretations of the mainstream churches.

-Exucmember 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evolution critic" would be an poor title. Why not just call him "strawman critic", since he doesn't criticise evolution, he criticised strawmen which he calls evolutionary ideas. It's like someone pointing out well known flaws in Newtonian mechanics and saying that they are criticising physics. Guettarda 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The simple NPOV solution is to just call him a "biologist". He has a PhD in biology, and has written books and papers in biology. Some of those writings deviate from mainstreams views, but he is still a biologist. Roger 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You could also say "biologist and author" since it seems that he is best known for his writing. Steve Dufour 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are talking about the article title. The only reason his name doesn't stand on its own is that it needs to be disambiguated from other people named Jonathan Wells (at present, only one other). What appears in parentheses should be as concise as possible. He can be described as "biologist and author" in the first sentence. Wikpedia conventions for such naming are to call the subject what the subject himself would be called. "Biologist" is so obvious that I can't believe I didn't think of it myself. The article should be moved immediately. -Exucmember 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is he actually a practicing biologist? It seems to me he has a degree in biology, but his career is largely unrelated. WP identifies sports figures as such, even though they may have attended a college and received a degree in an unrelated field. He has a doctorate in religious studies as well, so why identify him as a "biologist" and not a "theologian?"

As for the "creationist" label being inaccurate because creationism is sometimes linked to a literal belief n Genesis, the intelligent design article says: "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God." Dover showed that ID is just creationism repackaged. eaolson 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states that he has published 3 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are not on the topic of creationism or ID but on biology. He has also published 3 books criticizing Darwinism. A critic's analysis of what ID "really" is is irrelevant. The disambiguation should be simple (not a veiled critique), and should describe the subject as he would describe himself. Such naming conventions also normally use his career designation, not a critic's view of his beliefs. "Biologist" is obviously correct. -Exucmember 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article name/disambiguous page should no necessarily describe a subject as they would describe themselves. I would argue that the subject's own opinion would not be an important factor in an naming convention because it is impossible for someone to be WP:NPOV about themselves. I'm not advocating one name over another here, but working from the reasoning that the subject's own views should somehow shape this debate is a very bad starting point.--Isotope23 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling Wells a biolgist after publishing three papers would be simply ridiculous. Many undergrads have more papers published than that. And the three books criticizing "Darwinism" is an argument for it to be as it is since criticising "Darwinism" is a crreationist thing (again, at best you could make this (anti-evolutionist) (which we have a few cites calling him)) rather than creationist. Also agree with Isotope that working off of what he calls himself is a non-starter. JoshuaZ 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say it was a non-starter. I asked him about this. He said it was his personal opinion that we don't have to honor what people call themselves. He also pointed me to the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which says:

• Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.

Then Isotope23 went on to say: "In the case of the Wells article it would be my opinion that 'biologist' would probably be a good middle ground based on his training." -Exucmember 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to me... I don't know anything about the guy. My opinion isn't especially informed in this case, though I would say that Jonathan Wells (author) is probably a very good WP:NPOV naming option.--Isotope23 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells isn't notable as an author, he is notable as an ID activist (his writing being a subset of this activism). Ed's page move, done without consensus (or even discussion, as far as I can tell) is not an improvement. We wouldn't have an article on Wells as an author if it were independent of his activism. I am undoing the page move done without consensus. Guettarda 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What has he done as an activist besides write the 3 books? Nothing else is mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason Wells is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is because he is an ID activist. Consequently, that should be the main focus of the article. He isn't a notable biologist, he isn't a notable "author" outside of his ID work, and he most certainly isn't a notable "biology writer" - he writes about ID, consequently he is a religious writer notable for his creationist acitivism. The article should reflect these well-supported positions, not some activist spin that deeks to obscure Wells' achievements. If his main notability were his contributions to biology, this article would have been deleted years ago. Guettarda 05:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jay Gould is not a notable biologist outside of his biology work. Please refrain from highly biased POV assertions. "Author" is NPOV, a compromise because of objections to "biologist." These disambig clarifiers always use the person's occupation, not what they believe, what philosophical school they belong to, or what they preach. He is an author on biology topics, including ID. You have a penchant for accusing others of what you are doing: "activist spin." Knock it off and start being civil! -Exucmember 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consenus for the page move. Wells is solely notable as an activist for creationism. He has won on accolades as an author. Guettarda 06:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if I were to agree with you, that would be irrelevant to the question of what is the most NPOV descriptor of what Wells' profession is. We are talking about the disambig clarifier. You blatantly lied before when you said I called you a POV pusher, but your actions now speak very loudly. They are screaming. Now I understand why Roger would exclaim that the page is for name-calling. Is that all you are interested in? If you continue to insist on keeping this article as an attack article with no sense of fairness or balance then perhaps Steve is right and it should be deleted. I simply can't believe you are acting this way. -Exucmember 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the label creationist is not considered descriptive. If he and others like him describe themselves as creationists (or the synonym IDist re: Dover trial revealing the shell game of replacing creationism with ID) why would this article not do the same? David D. (Talk) 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The view you cite is that of a critic. Feel free to represent critics' views in the article. Critics views are not appropriate as a substitute for a person's name in the title of a biolography article. -Exucmember 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the judge was neutral? He was a critic? David D. (Talk) 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Relative importance of subject?

I was just visiting the article on Luther Burbank, who also worked in the field of biology and was certainly more important than Dr. Wells (although he didn't have a PhD. :)). They have about the same size WP article. Steve Dufour 03:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Luther Burbank certainly had a tremendous impact on science, but only a minimal impact on social and political dialogue. Wells hass had a far greater impact on the social and religious dialog. Justin Eiler 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he would be glad to hear you say that.  :-) On the other hand Burbank's development of the Russet Burbank potato did have a certain social impact. Steve Dufour 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I said "social and political dialogue." The reason for Wells to have a proportionately larger article than his actual contribution to science is because his arguements are frequently quoted and cited in support of Intelligent Design, which is a very hot topic right now politically. HTH. Justin Eiler 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize he was so important. Steve Dufour 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He shakes a pretty big stick in the Creationist/Intelligent Design communities. Justin Eiler 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is not that important, but he has more enemies, and they cannot resist attacking him. Roger 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, they would be much more effective if they took a bit of the conspiracy gonzo jargon out of the article. I don't expect this to happen however.  :-) BTW Burbank had some critics too. Steve Dufour 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't happen. They are on an ideological mission to badmouth anyone who criticizes Evolution. Roger 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

At least Darwinists, unlike Marxists, don't shoot people. :-) Steve Dufour 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A reminder of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL would go around. Now if you have any substantial problems, instead of making ad hominem attacks why don't you explain what "conspiracy" elements are in the article that are not well sourced to reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is very well sourced. Steve Dufour 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so...JoshuaZ 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the way the article could be improved is to cut out the opinions and just give the basic facts about Wells. Steve Dufour 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, how are well-sourced notable opinions not relevant? How would this be an improvement? JoshuaZ 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you like you can check out Luther Burbank's article again. It gives the basic facts of his life and work, and mentions the criticism he received in just one short paragraph. It makes for an interesting article to read. Steve Dufour 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted statements of Wells' positions

The following statements of some of Wells' key positions were deleted from the article. The only rationale given was that they were "pointless." I think they should be reintegrated into the article:

• "Empirical science requires theories, somehow and at some point, to be compared with evidence. Prudence will dictate that theories long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of exaggerations and distortions evinces a desire to promote an idea regardless of the evidence, then it is our right, it is our duty, to criticize that idea as a philosophical doctrine rather than a scientific theory."

[9]

• "All the peppered moth pictures were staged ... Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks." [10]

• "As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design." (ibid)

-Exucmember 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is still some more pointless stuff that should be removed. What is the point of the comments on HIV/AIDS and the age of the Earth? Roger 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the discussion of the cover picture of one of his books, and that was put in by a supporter I think. :-) Steve Dufour 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. The grad student comment, the icons quote seem relevant. Of course the HIV stuff and the age of the earth stuff is relevant. I don't see the cover picture matter or his quote about what he thinks theories should cover are relevant. JoshuaZ 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will put the grad student comment back in the article then. Steve Dufour 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The specific points Wells makes against evolution can go in the Icons of Evolution article. They don't all need to be rehashed here. I favor the principle of once and only once, since I'm a software engineer and I don't like maintaining redundant material (it makes extra work). --Uncle Ed 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to take a stab at removing the stuff in the article which is not about Jonathan himself? Steve Dufour 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Year of Birth

The New York Times article which is cited about his army record says he was 25 years old in 1968. That would make him born in 1942 or 1943. If the person in the article is the same Jonathan Wells. Steve Dufour 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the whole army thing was removed. I thought it added some human interest to the story. Steve Dufour 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims about cancer

Should we include Wells claims about the nature of cancer discussed here? JoshuaZ 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a fellow is not notable

That kind of thing, a job or position in an organization, is not notable enough for WP. It can be mentioned in the article but if it is given in the first sentence as a reason he is notable then maybe he is not and the article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a fellow of the DI almost makes you notable by itself. Fellows of the DI are at the center of the ID movement and Well's presence as one of the mainstays of the ID movement has been precisely as one of the people at the helm of the DI. Almost any article about him his association with the DI for precisely those reasons. JoshuaZ 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be about the DI itself if Wells is only notable for his role in it. I think that would be WP policy. Steve Dufour 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I think the information should be included in the article, just not in the first sentence. Steve Dufour 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is notable as ID activist. His other achievements (jailed for refusing to go back to Vietnam, getting a PhD, his work at the Unificationist seminary), while noteworthy, do not constitute notability. The DI is the force behind ID. All of the major proponents of ID are associated with the DI. Regardless of the causal relationship, his association with the DI is a key component of this ID activism, which is the reason he is notable. So yes, it definitely belongs there. Guettarda 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Discovery Institute. Steve Dufour 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...there are also articles on Bohemian Grove and Area 51. (just kidding)  :-) Steve Dufour 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Discovery Institute article

He is not mentioned in the article on the Discovery Institute at all. Why is that if his membership in it is so important? Steve Dufour 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Opponents of Intelligent Design point out that all (or nearly all) ID supporters are affiliated with the D.I.

I guess they are implying that there is no grass roots movement, but merely a campaign by one partisan organization.

Anyway, here at Wikipedia, there is a dedicated crew of a dozen or more contributors who combine to present ID in a bad light, and the materialist view of evolution in a good light.

Don't get too wrapped up in it, Steve. There are plenty of other topics to write about. --Uncle Ed 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Good advice.  ;-) Steve Dufour 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. Good work, the article reads much better now.

Army record removed

The New York Times story which is referenced dates from 1968 and is about a man who was 25 at that time, 64 today. Is there any reason to think this is the same Jonathan Wells? If there is evidence for this please put the paragraph back. It does add a little human interest to the article, as I said. Steve Dufour 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells told me he spent time in the brig for draft evasion, when I first met him two dozen years ago. Like me, he's a bit of a rebel. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link from Wells himself: http://www.darwinismandid.com/then/index.php Guettarda 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a great source and clears up some other points in the article. Steve Dufour 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Biology author"

I don't see how the descriptor "biology author" can really be applied to Wells. If he is notable as an author, it is for his ID work, not his biology work. Biology is the science of life. ID has been well established as being non-science. "Fiction, with animals", or "theology with animals" are possible descriptors for his writing (note: I am not implying that theology is fiction, but rather that Wells' books are a mixture of the two). But "biology"? No. Guettarda 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An author is a person who writes books. One of Wells's books has its own article. So it seems to me that if he is notable it is as an author. Steve Dufour 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was about "biology".Guettarda 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just "author" is fine with me. It seems like he is most notable for the books he has written. Steve Dufour 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wells is the author of several articles on biology that are not related to ID. Darwin has to do with biology last time I checked. Wells writes about biology.

Critics would like to pin the name "Creationist" on him. Most people associate this with "Creation Science," as is clearly stated in the Creationism article. Wells does not believe in Creation Science. If anyone wants to make a case for Wells being a Creationist, please do so in a criticism section, not in the introduction. -Exucmember 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he work for DI? Why are his biology articles relevant in that context? In the same vain why are Sarfati's chemistry articles relevant to his work with AiG? For reference the Sarfati article describes him as a "Australian writer and researcher". David D. (Talk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he a "biology writer"?

Can we get a consensus on this? Author is a far more NPOV term in my opinion. How are we going to describe him in the first sentence? JoshuaZ 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "author" as well. No one can deny that he has written some books. If his books are really "about" biology seems to be a matter of some contention. Steve Dufour 19:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there really some contention about whether his books are about biology? One book is a collection of criticisms of how evolutionary biology is presented in biology textbooks. I don't see how anyone can claim that the book is not about biology. Roger 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I gotta side with JoshuaZ on this one. We all agree that (1) he is an author and (2) that there is nothing POV about calling him an author.

What he's writing about might be a bit harder to describe, but let's try process of elimination: he's not an author of biology textbooks. Does that help? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To me "biology writer" gives the picture of someone who has written biology textbooks or maybe articles about plants and animals for science and nature magazines. It wouldn't be wrong to say that Wells is a biology writer, but doesn't he write more on philosophical questions rather than on biological subjects themselves? Steve Dufour 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To call him a "biology writer" suggests that he writes about biology. Is there any evidence that he does so? You can't call pseudoscience science. You can't call an astrologer and astronomer, even though they write about stars. Guettarda 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has addressed the issue I raised above about his other writings that were on biology that had nothing to do with ID (or philosophy). I said: "Wells is the author of several articles on biology that are not related to ID. Darwin has to do with biology last time I checked. Wells writes about biology."

Steve raises a good point about the picture created by certain terms. We should be aware of that when considering alternatives. It would be nice if people considered this angle when thinking about "creationist." I don't think it's accurate, however, to say that he writes on philosophical questions rather than on biological subjects themselves. -Exucmember 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if he's a biology writer or a scientist or just an ax-grinding hack. Just tell me what the standards are.

If a man with a Ph.D. in biology gets 3 peer-reviewed papers on biology published in scientific journals, what does that make him? What if he ran a lab of some sort? Is he a former scientist, a retired biologist, a "disgraced former biologists who broke ranks and defecting to the dark side"? ;-) --Uncle Ed 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually only one of those publications really counts, since it's the only one he's lead author on, and that was over 20 years ago. It's actually remarkably low output, since you should be able to get 3-5 papers out of the average dissertation, and in molecular biology it's easy to contribute enough to someone else's project to get coauthorship (especially when it's third author or worse). A degree in a science does not make you a scientist - working as a scientist makes you a scientist - doing and publishing research. He is a biologist by training, but without pubs or any evidence that he is active in the field, it's hard to call him a "biologist". Guettarda 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He is noted for the books he wrote. Steve Dufour 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda here. As I pointed out earlier, many undergrads have 3 or 5 papers. That doesn't make them biologists. JoshuaZ 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Creationism/ID aside, I just don't understand how Wells has a PhD. Three papers, only one of which has him as first author. Of that first author paper, it's been cited three times, by Wells, himself. In 22 years, it's never been cited by anyone else. (But this isn't really relevant to the article.) eaolson 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If an undergrad has 3 published papers in biology, then I'd say that he qualifies as a biologist. If he then gets a PhD in biology, then nearly everyone would say that he qualifies as a biologist. Roger 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• William "Refrigerator" Perry went to Clemson University and got a degree in therapeutic recreation (whatever that is). Yes, his WP article is at William Perry (American football). While Wells may have a degree in biology, he is not a practicing biologist. But, frankly, after the move to "Corrigan," this discussion just seems moot. eaolson 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Roger agrees, but I am among those who compromised on calling him a biologist in exchange for the obviously POV misleading labelling of him as a creationist.

So the question for me is not whether he can be called a "biologist," it is whether he can be called a "biology writer" (or something to that effect). I haven't heard anone disagree that he is a writer. What does he write about? Biology. -Exucmember 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perry has distinguished himself by playing football, not by writing books and papers on therapeutic recreation. Wells has distinguished himself by writing books on biology. Roger 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wells has written books criticising evolution, not books on biology. There is a huge difference. Dawkins wrote a book criticising religious belief, but no one is trying to label him a theologian (at least not the last time I checked, pehaps I should keep a close eye on that talk page?). KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have to agree with the "critics". Calling him a "biology writer" makes it sound like he should be considered an authority on biology. Fans and critics of Wells disagree sharply on this. In fact, as Guettarda points out, Wells got the degree not to be an academic scientist, but to "defeat Darwinism". So to be neutral, we can say:

1. He is an author; because he has a well-known book out.
2. He has a Ph.D. degree in biology; because no one disputes this.

Disputed points:

1. that he is a scientist: Wells says so, others disagre
2. that he is a "biologist": if this means he is a scientist working in the field of biology, then it depends on whether he's a scientist
3. that he is a "biology writer": this seems to mean he's an authoritative source of information on biology, see Category:Science writers

I suggest we stick with what is beyond dispute, in the beginning of the article. Later on, like at the end, we can describe any controversies about his qualifications or expertise. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very nice summary from Ed here. i mentioned above that the Sarfati's article describes him as a "writer and researcher". This seems to be a way out that could satisfy both sides. The reader can determine from the article the nature of his research. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have a problem with describing anyone as a "researcher". Just about very human who has ever lived researched, that is tried to find out new information, but almost no one has ever been notable for just that. Steve Dufour 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with what Ed is saying. Just to clarify the reason I raised this point - article currently starts out by calling him a "biology writer". To start with that statement implies that he is most notable as a writer on biological topics. Wells is most notable as a proponent of intelligent design - regardless of whether you want to call him a writer, activist, or theologian...he writes with an admitted agenda and is a proponent of intelligent design. The notable (and undisputed, I hope) points, as I see them are

1. Wells is notable for his ID-related work (proponent of ID, ISCID fellow)
2. Wells has two PhDs - one in biology, the other in theology
3. He has written several books (and other essays) with the purpose of "defeating Darwinism"
4. He is not just an evolution opponent, but also a HIV opponent (useful for context, he isn't just at odds with the scientific establishment on one issue, but two)

Disputed points

1. Whether he is a scientist - he says so, but most working definitions of scientist disagree (with biologist being the obvious subset of scientist...though, of course, molecular biology isn't real biology, it's glorified chemistry)
2. Whether to consider him a biology writer (I take it that there are sources that assert that he is one?)

Guettarda 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced "biology writer" with "author". I hope that is o.k. Steve Dufour 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what Guettarda says above. I don't think that it is true that "Wells is most notable as a proponent of intelligent design". His best-known book is Icons of Evolution, which is a criticism of biology textbooks, and has little if anything to say about ID.

I also doubt that Wells's wrote his books for the "purpose of defeating Darwinism". I am not a mindreader, and we don't know his purposes.

It is also wrong to say that Wells is an "HIV opponent". All we know is that he signed a statement calling for the "thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence".

This article is just a smear attack on Wells from beginning to end. I think that the whole article should be scrapped and rewritten by someone without an ideological axe to grind against him. Roger 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find someone who is interested. :-) If you took out every sentence in which Jonathan is not the subject the article would be much improved. I'd give it a try but I know it would make people upset. Steve Dufour 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not do it in your own user domain (User:Steve Dufour/sandbox)and ask for comment? David D. (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. I will give it a try. Steve Dufour 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just finished it. Check it out if you like. Steve Dufour 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, Icons is part of his ID work and in any event, what evidence do you have that he is best known for that? As to the defeating Darwinism- he has said so, read the quote about why he got his PhD. Finally, as to the HIV oppopne, calling for ""thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for X" is precisely what many groups do when they think ~X but want to seem more "open minded" (hence all the fun with teaching the controversy and similar statements). JoshuaZ 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, I have to agree strongly with you about defeating Darwinism. Wells is clearly a man on a mission. "As a student at Unification Theological Seminary north of New York City, I became interested in yet another controversy -- the one over Darwinian evolution -- and I spent all my spare time reading books and journals at the Columbia University biology library." Let me tell you, when a grad student spends all his spare time reading, it must be something he's hot and bothered about. Why wasn't at the local bar, chasing girls, huh?

Roger, I'm on your side on the issues, but when I'm at this website, I got to toe the line. And Joshua is right on this point. Why not work on something else for a while? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

No, Joshua is wrong about this. If a politician says that he wants a reappraisal of our mission in Iraq, that could be a code phrase for a pacifist surrender. Or it could mean exactly what it says. Do you go around to the WP entries for politicians who say they want a reappraisal, and insert statements that they are trying to surrender American interests? That would be wrong. Just give the quote and let the reader decide it means.

It is fine to quote what Wells says about AIDS or his mission in life. My objection is to the dubious inferences that he really meant something other that what he said.

Ed Poor, if you really wrote this, I've noticed that a gang of evolutionists has succeeded in punishing you for trying to bring balance to some of these pages. That is too bad. I hope that you are still able to contribute, as I think that you were doing good work. Yes, I realize that this article is going to be biased attack on Wells no matter what I say. Just look at the insistence on name-calling with terms like "creationist", even tho the term is inaccurate. Roger 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How, precisely, is the term inaccurate? •Jim62sch• 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than editing the article...

...I followed David D.'s advice and tried out the changes I had been suggesting in my sandbox. Please let me know what you think. User:Steve Dufour/sandbox Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes to make it more neutral. I am no expert on him, and I have no idea whether some of the stuff is true or not. The stuff about someone having debated him and disagreed with him is just too silly to mention. Sure, debate opponents disagree; they are supposed to. Signing an AIDS petition is so minor that it needs only the simplest mention. I also found this unnecessary and false:

He rejects the predominant scientific views of both evolution and that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

I am not sure he rejects either of these. The references just don't show it. Roger 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that those who are not aware that Darwinism is a real term might want to take a minor role in editing this article, rather focusing their attention on articles which involve core topics about which they are more knowledgeable. -Exucmember 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean in the modern context of biology? Is Wells criticising Darwin or evolution? Here it appears to be used in the context of evolution but this does not sound correct. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the claim that Wells rejects evolution; perhaps better references are in order to support this part of the assertion as stated. On the AIDS question, I doubt that an adequate reference can be provided to back up the claim, but I'd be happy to see one if someone can find it. (If not, the claim in the introduction should be removed or significantly modified.) -Exucmember 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What Wells really objects to

• According to several Gallup polls, only about ten percent of the American people believe in Darwin's theory that we are accidental by-products of a strictly natural process of evolution. The other ninety percent believe that God played an important role in the process--either by guiding evolution or by creating life directly. [11]

Wells has framed "Darwin's theory" as asserting:

• that human beings are an accidental by-product
• that evolution is a strictly natural process

Defenders of evolution frame their position like this:

• We're not saying the process is strictly naturalistic
• We're just restrictiong ourselves to examining natural causes

This is apparently a "proxy fight" over whether science ought to confine itself to the physical world and physical causes; or should have an expanded scope which is willing to examine the supernatural. Talk:Intelligent_design recently had something about the desire of ID advocates to have science accept the possibility that a supernatural cause may have been involved in evolution. --Uncle Ed 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec): I was objecting to a blanket statement that Wells rejects evolution, when he appears to accept at least some of evolution as it is defined in WP. Roger 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I put a {fact} tag on that assertion. [12] --Uncle Ed 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. However if you could scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, it seems to me Steve Dufour 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain how not? Guettarda 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed's edit is an improvement, but I would omit the whole sentence about pseudoscience. Yes, Wells signed a petition for AIDS reappraisal, and some AIDS reappraisal proposals are considered by some to be pseudoscience, but there is no source that says that Wells's position on AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience. The sentence is just an attempt to blame Wells for what someone else has said. Roger 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, care to explain why you are removing cited material, and claiming it is cited? There are two supporting citations on the HIV thing. As for the issue that Wells rejects the predominant scientific view of evolution...how not? Did you miss those two books Wells wrote in which he rejected the predominant views on evolution? Did you miss the whole article? Guettarda 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He does not "reject" evolution itself, or so it seems. Nor is there evidence that he "rejects" the idea that HIV causes AIDS, although he might well do that -- on the other hand he might have just signed the letter as a favor to his friend. WP policy requires that potentially negative material on a living person be removed. When Ed and Roger made their comments above I realized that that was what this sentence is. I protested against the AIDS thing before but let it pass after a while since that his views on AIDS are a minor point, evolution is the main thing. Steve Dufour 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence says that he rejects "the predominant scientific views of Darwinian evolution". How is that uncited? How is that not accurate? As for the HIV statement - it's referenced. It's false to claim it isn't. Guettarda 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about him "rejecting" anything. Steve Dufour 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed "rejects" to "disagrees with" and left the AIDS info at the bottom of the article. Steve Dufour 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a problem with the word "reject". Steve Dufour 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no supporting cite for the HIV thing. The cites say that some AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience, but not what Wells signed. As for evolution, show me where Wells has ever disagred with the theory that "some of a population's inherited traits become more common, at the expense of others, from generation to generation." Roger 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that further sources have been added for the HIV matter. I think it makes things clear. JoshuaZ 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cites make it clear that you cannot support what the article actually says. One opinion article only says, "ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." This is just unreliable name-calling. Roger 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On "disputes," "rejects," "disagrees with," "denies," I have to agree with Guettarda's last edit and not Ed's. To me, one "denies" facts or things that are simple and objectively true. This doesn't fit a scientific theory, which is always subject to revision. I don't have a problem with the alternatives, including "rejects," but agree that it's best to use the word in the citation.

On the question of whether he rejects evolution, if it's clear we're talking about the Darwinian version of evolution, the following quotation from Wells certainly seems to say that he rejects that: "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence." It's a short jump from there to say that he rejects the prevailing scientific view. -Exucmember 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to take those short jumps from what Wells actually says, to how you might like to characterize his views. Just say, "Wells argued that Darwinian theory conflicts with the evidence and he called for an AIDS reappraisal." Then you have clear support. As it is, those short jumps are inaccurate and slanderous. Roger 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri) So, Ex, what is non-Darwinian evolution? Why the need for the adjective? Has Well proposed his own form of evolution?

Also, he does not dispute the accuracy of evolution, he denies that it is accurate.

Rog, where do you see slander? •Jim62sch• 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the meaning of these terms. If you want to accurately describe Wells's beliefs, then use his terminology. Roger 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't use the term "papists" when talking about Catholics, or use obviously unacceptable terms in articles about groups that preach racial superiority, even if those groups themselves use those terms exclusively. eaolson 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is not the place to debate the meaning of these terms." Uh, yeah. •Jim62sch• 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

the NNDB

• "NNDB:Jonathan Wells". NNDB. 2006.

This is one of the external links. It doesn't seem to me to be a very reliable source of information. A few weeks ago I e-mailed them to tell them that they have Jonathan's birth date wrong. He couldn't have been born in 1956 if he was drafted into the Army in 1964. The wrong date is still in their article. Steve Dufour 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Wikipedia policy is to consider nndb to be unreliable in general. JoshuaZ 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from this article then. It doesn't give any additional information anyway. Steve Dufour 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Problematic content

In an essay posted to the tparents.org website, Wells wrote:

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978 [in Religious Studies], I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

Wells' statement has been used many times by scientists to highlight his motivation and question his objectivity. The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion".

About his studies at Yale, Wells said:

"As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design."

---

Non sequitur because discovery.org doc does not mention doc at tparents.org but 'Icons of Evolution. Section needs a re-write. CyberAnth 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think both quotes should stay. If you took the opinions of the unnamed "scientists" out and let the readers make up their own minds that would solve the problem. Steve Dufour 08:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - the above simply is incorrect per the sources and needs to be re-worked.

• "Wells' statement [at tparents.org] has been used many times by scientists to highlight his motivation and question his objectivity." - this is supported in discovery.org. However, the article text is set up as though the discovery.org article is a defense "in response" of subject's tparents.org article. It is not but a defense of his views in his book mentioned in the article. So this section needs re-working to mesh with the sources.

It is simply inaccurate use of the sources - the sources can stay but they are not used rightly here. Is that clearer now?

CyberAnth 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides I think real scientists would be too busy with their own work to spend their time "using" people's statements to "highlight" their motivations and "question" their objectivity. Steve Dufour 09:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try putting the quotes back without the opinions. Steve Dufour 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess people like opinions. :-) Steve Dufour 09:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please believe me, it had nothing to so with my opinions but what appeared to me as a section written in a confusing way. Personally, I basically agree with Wells' positions on Darwinism and maintain that most Darwinsists' views are every bit as "religious" as Wells'. I went ahead and re-wrote the section and I hope others deem it as improved. BTW, as far as some BLPs on WP are concerned, this article was stellar before I even arrived, so please take some encouragement.  :-) Also, I agree that "denies" is too strong for his views on Darwinism and "disagrees" is more accurate. Perhaps "disagrees with prevailing Darwinian views" is even more accurate. I personally think no person in their right mind rejects Darwinism in total. CyberAnth 09:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to your opinions but just trying to make the point that the article would be much better with just the facts about Wells without the opinions of third parties. Steve Dufour 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Names Database

So what's the real problem with having a link to the Notable Names Database in the External Links section? This common at Wikipedia, and NNDB not being offered as a reliable source supporting article content, so the justification for deleting it [13] is specious. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be high quality. I already mentioned how they are saying he was born in 1956 when he was drafted into the army in 1964. How can we trust anything it says? Steve Dufour 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon's Unification Church opposition to evolution

Steve, are you trying to deny that Moon and his church do not oppose evolution?[14] That they do is well-supported by both primary and secondary sources, including Moon's own words and an article in Nature: "Could evolution itself create a new awareness and make a new design? Absolutely not." The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon: Our Standard "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church. Church founder Sun Myung Moon has..." Nature TFeloniousMonk 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not object if you said the Rev. Moon was himself and maybe gave a quote from him saying so. However the church itself does not take a position on evolution. Many church members believe in "Darwinian" evolution by natural selection. I was a subscriber of the old World and I magazine which was sponsored by the church. They had science articles every month and they always seemed to assume that everyone who read them accepted evolution. Steve Dufour 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? And how do you account for Nature printing "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church."[15]? We've got a notable source, Nature, which is far from being known for sloppy journalism, saying that the UC objects to evolution. That's sufficient for inclusion in the article as it stands, unless you can provide some evidence that we cannot take the article Nature on it's face. FeloniousMonk 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As if the magazine Nature is a specialist in the theology or beliefs of practices of the Unification Church. I do not think it is a reputable source for this claim. Andries 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But Nature is clearly indeed a specialist publication for evolution and the teaching of it, which is more to the point here. When someone objects to a subject you are an expert on, one not need be an expert on the separate teachings of the challenger to recognize the challenge. FeloniousMonk 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Wells is the only American church member who is spending any amount of time on the evolution issue. Don't get my wrong, many church members do have some kind of "creationist" or "intelligent design" point of view; but it is not official church policy. As fo myself, I happen to believe that God created the Universe and life though normal, natural processes. Steve Dufour 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence is a hoot. Interesting mix of the supernatural and the natural, the paranormal and the normal, mythology and reality. •Jim62sch• 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues with CyberAnth's version

CyberAnth's version has major, obvious NPOV issues, misrepresenting and grossly under-representing the scientific community's position and its reception of Wells' claims, the yet his reversion's edit summary [16] implies that WP:BLP trumps WP:NPOV, which it does not. In this section we can go through each of the points of contention in CyberAnth's version if he'd like. FeloniousMonk 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Under-representing the scientific community?! This is an article about Wells, not the scientific community. You as might as well complain that it under-represents the Moonie community, or the intelligent design community, or the Catholic community, or the theology community. This article should not be a soapbox for FM's peculiar views on pseudoscience. Roger 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in a BLP means we do not explain the subject's views from the persepctive of the subject's crtics - as your version does, which reads like a slugfest. CyberAnth 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, you're both wrong. WP:NPOV says "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience clearly says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, kicking this off, this is my first pass, only covering the intro, at the most obvious NPOV issues with CyberAnth's version:

• "John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells, Ph.D., is an author, a prominent promoter of intelligent design, and a critic of Darwinism." --The use of "Darwinism" is not neutral; it repeats the rhetoric of every prominent ID proponent. ID proponents intentional use Darwinism as an ambiguous throw-away term as a rhetorical device to further their arguments. [17] The term "Darwinism" is never used in the same manner by the scientific community. What ID proponents actually object to when they say "Darwinism" is evolution. [18][19]

• "In Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, argued that Darwinian theory conflicts with the evidence and critiqued the presentation of evolution in public education in American schools." --Again use of "Darwinian theory" simply repeats the minority viewpoint's rhetoric. And "critiqued the presentation of evolution" soft-peddles the point, Well's strongly challenges the current presentation of evolution in public school science classes, as seen in his "Icons of Evolution."

• "He disagrees with the predominant scientific view of evolution and has signed a petition questioning the prevailing hypothesis that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." --This creates an undue weight issue and a misleading impression. Wells doesn't just disagree with the concept of evolution endorsed by the scientific community, he rejects it entirely as seen in his book "Icons of Evolution."[20] And he hasn't just "signed a petition questioning the prevailing hypothesis that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)"; he endorsed a statement submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.

That covers the intro, I'll wait for responses before moving on to the following sections. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The BLP vs. NPOV issue isn't relevant- everything in FM's version is well sourced so there isn't a BLP issue. JoshuaZ 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like FM's more extreme version. It gives the article an "attitude", which makes Wells seem more interesting. Steve Dufour 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it extreme, or is it accurate? I go for the latter. "Darwinian" is used by Creationists and IDists (same thing really), the way "Communist" was used during the Cold War.

As for the remainder, I pointed out yesterday that Wells' statements show using terms like "disagree" to be dishonest. •Jim62sch• 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is wrong on all counts. He says that the scientific community never uses the term "Darwinism", but they have in fact used that term for 100 years. Here is an interview in which Richard Dawkins uses the term. [[21]]

The book "Icons of Evolution" is primarily a critique of biology textbooks, not public school science classes.

The only source on Wells and AIDS is the petition he signed. [[22]] That's all. Some of those signers did get a letter published in Science magazine, but Wells did not sign that letter. [[23]] : The changes advocated by FeloniousMonk, JoshuaZ, and other evolutionists put words in Wells's mouth that he did not say. This article is not a platform for bashing creationists. It is just about Wells. Roger 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)