Talk:Michael Behe

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Michael Behe article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Behe in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Behe is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Michel Behe article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries.

Undue weight to a fringe view

Can you elaborate on the undue weight that was contained in the short book summary, and how it detracted from the mainstream context?

Can you elaborate on how moving the discussions of falsifiable and the identity of the intelligent designer into their own sections and out of the Darwin's Black Box section affects undue weight or the mainstream context?--Swood100 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to your repeated attempts to add this mass of blockquotes and commentary by the subject of this article[1] into the article, adding about 1/3 by text volume to his exceedingly fringe view, without context or balance? Sometimes including actually removing the mainstream criticism of that view[2] as well? Is that your query? Or did you mean something else? Please be specific with your questions, or people cannot answer them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If this were an article on a mainstream subject, then a fringe view would be allowed little or no space. In an article by a person who holds a fringe view, however, the fringe view has to be reported. That’s what the article is about. When there is a difference between the majority view and the fringe view the article must make it clear which is the majority view.

If it is reported that the subject of an article has been accused of engaging in an Argument from Ignorance and he disputes that, then there are three ways to handle it (a) report the accusation but not the denial, (b) report the accusation and just say “The subject denies this.” (c) report the accusation and report the subject’s reasoning as to why he is denying the accusation.

I am following the third approach: explaining the subject’s reasoning. I have tried to trim the response down as much as I can, but there is a limit to this. I certainly think it’s appropriate to report a rejoinder after the response, if one exists, as I included in the “unfalsifiable” portion. I am not attempting to report only one side of the issue. If you think that I am guilty of this, please point it out. But if it takes a few extra paragraphs for Behe’s response to be presented in a coherent fashion, then I don’t see why that should not be done. This is an article about him, after all.--Swood100 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that I removed the "mainstream criticism of that view" but in the link you provided, not one word was removed, although the diff may make it look that way. I only inserted a short book summary. Please point out one word that was removed.--Swood100 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific objections, please state them.--Swood100 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait, and not assume that because I haven't included a certain rejoinder critical of Behe that I'm not going to. The judge in the Kitzmiller decision had some things to say on this question that were not at all favorable to Behe.--Swood100 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the added material has a whiff of WP:SYNTH about it and, anyway, appears largely irrelevant. The detail of Behe's claims and counter-claims illuminates very little, and the quality of the article is degraded (IMHO) by the inclusion of such minutia. If any material elsewhere describes the (excruciating) detail of this ding-dong between Behe and others (e.g. who used which particular word and when), then we should use this as a source rather than an excuse to shoehorn in such a level of detail. I think that it really unbalances the article, and for no real gain. Just my two cents. --PLUMBAGO 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two accusations are made against Behe:

1. Doolittle's study refuted Behe's prediction about the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.
2. After Doolittle's study came out Behe was guilty of intellectual dishonesty by trying to retroactivly change his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex.

What I have tried to do is give the reader the relevant facts related to this, as well as the arguments on both sides. This will help anyone who is trying to get to the bottom of these particular accusations to decide the question for himself. Previously, we just said that Doolittle's study refuted Behe. That might be sufficient for someone who is looking for a cursory treatment of the issue, but would not be for someone who wants the issue presented in greater depth. Perhaps we should split the article into an overview at the beginning, and then have a series of sections later on for those who want more information on a particular issue. But for those who come to Wikipedia trying to research the question of intellectual dishonesty or whether Behe has been refuted, I don't see how we get around the need for this level of detail.

Could you elaborate on the whiff of WP:SYNTH you detect here?--Swood100 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What I meant about WP:SYNTH was that the section currently reads like sources have been collected and presented here in a novel synthesis. That is, the resulting back-and-forth storyline presented in the article does not occur in any one source (i.e. it is synthesised). This does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does (IIRC) violate WP:SYNTH. My follow-up point is that, should this material not be a synthesis and actually occur in an external source, then we should cite that source and trim this unnecessary material. It is far, far too detailed, and seriously unbalances this article. Not only that, by just (metaphorically) giving him more rope, I'm not sure that the material really does Behe any favours, so could be viewed as objectionable under WP:BLP. Anyway, those were just the thoughts that I had. --PLUMBAGO 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to take an example, "The final paragraph above shows the animosity that exists between Behe and Miller, possibly in part because of Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial" is pure synthesis, taking two primary sources and drawing a novel conclusion without any secondary source. Similarly, the preceding long and incoherent statement culminating in a demand for a charitable reading of his wording is presented without a secondary source on its notability or interpretation. By bending over backwards to give an uncritical repetition of Behe's argument the article becomes TLDR and gives undue weight to Behe's promotion of pseudoscience. Needs better sourcing, and cleaning up. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that this is a little ungainly. I can clean it up. Questions:

1. The sentence beginning “The final paragraph…” was intended merely as a segue into the events at the trial. I thought that it just stated the obvious. What do you mean by “pure synthesis”? It is clear from what Behe wrote (“breathlessly reports,” “seems to have passed Miller by,” “malicious reading”) that Behe has no fond feelings for Miller. And it is clear that Miller’s testimony led to the judge saying that Behe took action “to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument.” What kind of source is required here?
2. I will summarize the long statement. However, this statement is not presented in order to establish the truth of the contents of the statement. It is presented simply to show Behe’s response to the accusation. Behe’s response was “On page 86 I specified limitations on my definition of the system that is irreducibly complex and I meant those limitations to also be in force when I discussed the same system on page 87, even though my use of the word “entire” might seem to negate that.” The reason I quoted the relevant material from pages 86 and 87 was so that the reader could evaluate this question for himself. I don’t see how a secondary source on the “notability or interpretation” of this claim is needed, or even what kind of a statement that would be. We clearly have both Miller and the Judge saying that the claim is not credible. It is nevertheless Behe’s statement of what he intended and he still gets to make it, even if he is the only one in the world who believes it. Not true?--Swood100 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you read Behe's abrasive response as suggesting "Behe has no fond feelings for Miller" doesn't mean that someone else might read it as normal banter – got a source sharing your view? And that says nothing about Miller's views, let alone support the idea that he has "animosity" for Behe. We cite Miller and the Judge, if need be we can go further and show that only a tiny fringe of expert biologists, if any, believe Behe's claim. You're giving a big lump of incoherent text to give undue weight to that fringe view. Wikipedia is about reflecting scholarly secondary sources, not about giving a right of reply to cranks. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I need to rewrite this. It needs to be made clear that the issue here is not whether the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex but rather what Behe intended to include in his definition of the blood clotting cascade. Under one definition Doolittle showed it not to be irreducibly complex. Under a different definition Doolittle's study did not address the question that Behe raised. I'll take a shot at it.

Also, WP:SYNTH apparently refers to reaching or implying a conclusion. If the comment about animosity between Behe and Miller is troubling to some I will take it out. It certainly doesn't add anything. As for the rest, I was trying to be scrupulous to avoid reaching any conclusions but I'll have another look at it. Maybe some slipped in.--Swood100 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blood clotting cascade

I received the following message:

Please do not edit an article to promote an individual's point of view, as you did to Michael Behe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 9 January 2010

Could the author please explain how my addition promoted an individual's point of view? Miller claimed that Doolittle's study had defeated Behe. Behe replied that this was based on a misreading of what he had said in Darwin's Black Box. I tried to show that the controversy revolved around the proper construction of a certain sentence that Behe had written, and then I quoted Behe as to what he had meant and why it should be construed in a certain way.

What part of this is objectionable?--Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see also that Behe's response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument from Ignorance has been removed by the same person. Is Behe not permitted to respond to this charge? Please explain.--Swood100 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

see above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone just reverted my edits, saying that there are "Serious NPOV problems with recent changes." Could that person point out the NPOV problems?--Swood100 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war to force your changes in. We don't work that way here. It is up to you to gain consensus for your major changes instead of just forcing them through wholesale. So far, I see no one agreeing with the bloat you are adding to the article. This isn't a detailed debate. It's a biography, and I think you are missing the point. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

After my edits were reverted I left the changes in place, created this section, and invited the person to explain the problems he or she found. The next day, when there had been no response, I concluded that the person had no problems to report and I undid his or her revert. If someone takes issue with something I have added, please bring it up and we'll discuss it. Please be specific.--Swood100 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry, I dropped the ball here. A cursory glance at the current article reveals most of the same flaws as before. Leaving aside WP:SYNTH, I still don't understand why this material is not over at the article on Behe's book. It does not need to be here, and seriously bloats and unbalances this article. I'll try to pop back later. --PLUMBAGO 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like this article is trying to cover some of the major points about Behe and touch on some of the major controversies. Let's take the part about Doolittle and the blood cascade. Presumably that could all be covered in the article dealing with Darwin's Black Box, but most everything else could also be covered in a different article. I simply added his response, which required a little more detail about the controversy. I think that we have to accept that if there's going to be both an article about Behe and one about the book, then there is going to be some overlap. Could you be more specific about what you mean by bloat and WP:SYNTH and unbalance?--Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By "unbalance" I mean that this one section of the article is wildly out of proportion to the rest of the article. By "bloat" I mean that the material included is largely only tangentially relevant for this article. It may make more sense over at the Darwin's Black Box article, but even there it may seriously bloat the article. It's also absurd that the subsection on one of Behe's book's is inflated by the inclusion of extensive quotation from another of his books. Furthermore, while I remain suspicious that the added material could be judged a novel synthesis of external sources, I'm now more of the opinion that the larger problem is just the inclusion of so much stuff. I'm also not sure that all of the material used could be judged reliable, at least for the purpose here of extensive quotation. For instance, the various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources (by which I include DI webpages). If the arguments they make are so valuable, they should appear in scientific literature. This again points, not to removing them, but to trimming mention to a summary statement and a link instead of extensive quotation.

Anyway, I've tagged up the section as being too long, and I intend to trim it when I've time. If you think the material is worth salvaging (and I'm sure you do), I'd suggest trying to summarise it here in this article but primarily integrating it with the main article on Behe's book. It really would make much more sense over there. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might make sense to divide this article up into various conceptual categories rather than into books. I started to break these categories out and another person objected, saying that he thought it should all stay under the book heading. Much of the material I added was simply Behe’s response to accusations made at the beginning of the section. Perhaps we should break these accusations out into separate sections. Then readers who are only interested in one controversy will be able to find it easily. What is your idea of the proper content of an article such as this?

Clearly, if a response to an accusation is available it needs to be supplied, and when we move from direct quotations to paraphrasing we lose something. This has to be weighed against the benefit to be gained by reducing the size of the article. To eviscerate a response in order to cut it down from two paragraphs to one only makes sense if evisceration is the objective.

1. The term “bloat” implies that the information value of the material does not justify its length, or, as you said, that it is irrelevant to an article such as this. Can you refer me to an example of that?
2. Can you give an example of the material that might not be judged reliable?
3. You said “. . . various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources. . .” I assume you are talking about the blood cascade issue, but the controversy there is whether or not Behe included the factors "before the fork in the pathway" in his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex. It can only be answered by looking at what Behe wrote. I don't really understand the point you are making here.--Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. If you don't understand that part of the job of an encyclopaedia is to summarise and distil material material down to something of a readable length, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your first point. You have added a huge amount of material to a single section of the article, a single section, I should add, that already has an article elsewhere. This material would largely fit much better there: why exactly is it here?
2. My point about the reliability of sources is not that they are a priori unreliable, but just that their nature (i.e. outside the scientific literature) makes them odd choice for commentary on ostensibly scientific matters (I say "ostensibly" since Behe's work has diverged from science to say the least). If they were making good scientific points, they would appear in the literature. That they don't (and I include both pro- and anti-Behe viewpoints here), tells us that we're on political ground. That said, I've no objection to including the sources here, but we don't need to so relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail that they could look up themselves by following a link. In passing, one of the sources is actually Behe's Amazon blog - is this likely to be judged a reliable source? Meanwhile, as I've noted before, another long block of quotation in support of this book is from another of his books.
3. Quoting Behe's response concerning clotting factors is giving undue weight to his views. The previous version of the article (which I note has now been trimmed somewhat by a third party) essentially finished up with remarks from Behe which might lead the reader to conclude, erroneously, that his viewpoint was the last word in this discussion. As it happens, it may well have been the last word in this discussion because the other participants got fed up with goalpost-shifting and tendentious points about particular wordings. That Behe does not publish these ideas in the scientific literature should tell one something about their reliability and whether using them would constitute undue weight.

Anyhow, I'll try to get around to looking at the newly trimmed version of the article. --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no response to my request that the person doing that massive revert explain his reasons, I undid it. I have no problem with criticism. It's just that we need to go about this in a civilized way: by expressing and discussing specific problems that we see.

I also broke out the major controversies into their own categories.

I start from the proposition that any theory that is to be discussed in Wikipedia should be presented as its proponent would present it, and that it is not proper to present a weakened or diluted version of a theory in order to accomplish goals related to Fringe theories. Those goals must be accomplished through commentary, response and rebuttal in the same article. The reader is entitled to have the actual, original theory presented to him and often there is nobody better able to present it than the fringe scientist himself. If the words of the scientist are used to present the theory there must be no confusion that this is an exposition of the theory by the proponent, and that this is not an explanation of the generally accepted theory. If that is accomplished, then the theory should be presented.

Do you agree with the preceding paragraph?

In his Amazon blog, Behe is explaining that Miller is wrong because he was mistaken as to what Behe's theory was. This serves to explain and define his theory. There is nobody better able to do that than the man himself. And whether it comes from his blog or from a book that he wrote is irrelevant. Is Behe's blog a reliable source? If the question is "Is Behe's theory true?" then Behe's blog is not a reliable source. If the question is "What is Behe's theory?" then the blog is is definitely a reliable source, and that is what it is being used for here. Disagreement?

Can you give me an example of where I "relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail"?

In your third paragraph, I think you are missing the point. The issue here is this: "Did Behe exclude the factors "before the fork in the pathway" from his definition of the irreducibly complex system?" We are trying to determine from his own writing what he wrote and what he meant. How is it giving undue weight to present his own view on this? Certainly the result may be that we do not believe that he "meant" something that was not explicitly expressed. That was the conclusion drawn by both Miller and the judge. And how can it be concluded that his viewpoint was the last word in the discussion when the judge formally found that Miller's view was the correct one? That Behe did not publish this in a scientific article would be relevant to whether the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex. It is not relevant to the determination of how he defined the system that he said was irreducibly complex. For that, we just look at what he wrote.

Was there a point you were making that I did not address?--Swood100 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A Simple Request

I have heard people assert that there are issues with the edits I have made. Each time, I have asked the person to please point out the specific text he or she is talking about and what the specific issue is, but nobody has done that. Then I get accused of being hard of hearing. Now somebody else has come along and done a major revert with no explanation.

To the people who have a problem with what I have added: how about some specifics? It is not enough just to throw out major categories such as WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I have read those but I need you to tell me specifically, in English, (a) what text is objectionable, and (b) what is the specific objection. Otherwise, how can we even discuss it? One person says "This is WP:NPOV." The next person says "No it's not." That's not productive. You need to point out the exact text and explain why you think it falls under an objectionable category.

Now Simonm223 has come along and reverted everything to some arbitrary point. Please explain (and please don't just recite category names).--Swood100 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who is arguing that it is never permissible to use a fringe scientist's own words to explain what his theory is? And that it is never permissible to show such a scientist's response to the charges made against him? I hope that everyone realizes how absurd that is. No matter what the theory is, it should be presented as the proponent presents it. How else does the reader know what the position is? Then should follow appropriate response and rebuttal. Any other approach that I'm aware of has no justification.--Swood100 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You have been trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK for a POV supporting the so-called Intelligent Design theory. The inclusion of extensive quotes from Behe, outlining his arguments is neither necessary to understand the subject of the article nor is it within the bounds of WP:DUE. Furthermore it violates WP:FRINGE by destroying parity of sources on an article related to a fringe topic (ID).

2) The burden falls on you to justify inclusion of new material. Not of me to justify reversion of your edits. The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits should indicate to you that consensus does not support the inclusion of that material. I do not intend to defend my reversions point by point. You should seek consensus over whether to include some of this contentious material. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we understand each other correctly. When the subject of an article is a fringe scientist:

1. I say that it is appropriate to use the words of the fringe scientist to show what his theory is, and you say that this is not allowed because (a) using the words of the fringe scientist is not an appropriate way to understand his theory, (b) using the words of the fringe scientist to set out what his theory is constitutes making an argument on his behalf, and (c) that the harm caused by allowing such an argument to be made cannot be remedied by rebuttal in the article.
2. You say that it is not appropriate to use the words of a fringe scientist to describe his theory because that violates parity of sources.
3. You say that you carefully thought through all the material you removed and determined that it was, without exception, all objectionable.
4. You refuse to address any specific text and explain why it falls into an objectionable category.

You failed to address the WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK issues. Furthermore you entirely disregarded my second point. I've laid out the reason for my revert. I've laid out what you should do if you want some of that material included in the article. I will not play WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT games with somebody pushing for their POV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how my additions violate WP:DUE. Here is what WP:DUE says:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

Please explain what makes this a WP:COATRACK issue:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

As far as justifying the inclusion of new material, I justify it this way:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. In addition, see the "Some General Rules" section for additional justifying reasons.--Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we have a fringe scientist who believes that Copernicus had it wrong and that in fact the Ptolemaic system is the one that is correct. He believes this is true because over time he can see the planets going around in circles in the sky. If this man has achieved sufficient notoriety to warrant his own article, you would argue that his descriptions of the Ptolemaic system, being the one that he asserts is the correct one, and statements of his planetary observations, may not be used in the article since (a) this violates parity of sources, (b) presenting his theory through the use of his own words would constitute the making of an argument on his behalf, and (c) there would be no way, then, that it would be possible to present modern experts who could demonstrate to the reader how far off-base this man is. You say that when a reader wants to understand a man's theory, hearing it expressed by the man himself does not tend to clarify exactly what the theory is. Rather, that is to be avoided in the case of a fringe theory because of the likelihood that no cogent arguments will be available to show the flaws in the fringe theory, and because consequently people will be led astray.

Please correct any point that I am not understanding correctly.--Swood100 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that the burden is upon you to justify the inclusion of new material and to gain consensus on the modificiations. It does not fall to me to justify my reversion. Seek consensus for your modifications if you wish to include them. Attempting to attack me for reverting you will not lead to that. I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion. Your long string of blockquotes weakly framed as "debate" discussion is thus what I have issue with.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, let's start with the Doolittle paragraph. You have it ending like this: "This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex." My additions show that this is a disputed point. I try to point out clearly that the dispute revolves around the pages in Darwin's Black Box where Behe says that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, meaning that if you remove one of the factors the system will no longer work. Doolittle found that the pufferfish was missing three of the factors and the system still worked. Miller said that his disproves Behe's prediction. Behe said that he had excluded those three factors from his definition of the irreducibly complex system, and so Doolittle's finding did not conflict with his prediction. The answer to the question revolves around how you interpret the simple English he used on pages 86 and 87 of his book. I maintain that since this is a disputed point, and since it can be explained in a brief space, it should be explained. And I believe that Behe's remark about the "principle of malicious reading" is relevant in that it shows his belief that a good-faith reading of what he wrote supports his position. I also included references showing the reader how to get to the relevant testimony of both Miller and Behe on this issue. These additions are more helpful to the reader than just declaring that one of the sides was correct.--Swood100 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Miller-Behe remarks being framed as a debate that can easily be remedied. I'll just give Miller's assertion and then Behe's response.--Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are having a problem with Behe's Argument From Ignorance response, the response could be paraphrased but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. All his points (or "talking points" as you put it) would still need to be included, because they constitute his answer to the charge. I have no objection to removing the blockquotes and displaying this all as one paragraph with regular quotes.--Swood100 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need to include a multitude of Behe quotes. I disagree with you on this. If you want to include it show that consensus supports your position. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you do not object to the undoing of your revert as long as we leave out Behe's current response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument From Ignorance and see if we can come up with a better one. However, you are not proposing that Behe's response to this charge could legitimately be excluded altogether. Is this correct?--Swood100 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is anybody else who has a problem with any of my edits, please let me know what text you are referring to and what the nature of the issue is.--Swood100 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The following statement was made above:

I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion.

The critical thing that this person is failing to realize is that the only thing that this article is about is Behe's opinion and how it differs from mainstream scientific opinion. People come to this article because they want to know about Behe's opinion - i.e. his theory. I think that this is the essence of the problem that people have with my edits. They don't want Behe's opinion to be expressed. Is there anybody who has a problem with my edits for some other reason? The solution is not to muzzle Behe. The solution is in the rebuttal. If anyone is aware of any strong, succinct rebuttals that I have overlooked, please point them out to me. I will be happy to present them as powerfully as I can.--Swood100 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections at this point, I will restore my edits, excluding the part about the Argument from Ignorance. I was never happy with that anyway because the quotations from Behe only made reference to chapters in his book where he says that he made arguments that were not merely negative. And the opposing quotations just spoke at a general level. And we need to also include the "God of the gaps" accusation (a form of Argument from Ignorance). We need to reference some specific arguments that Behe says turn his position into something other than an Argument from Ignorance. We also need specific rebuttals: why the particular arguments he is making fail to rescue his position from being an Argument from Ignorance and/or fail to be cogent arguments against the mainstream position. The web is a big place. If anybody knows of any good material on either side, and hasn't got the time right now to incorporate it into the article, just make a little note right here on this page, saying: "Check out this link" and I will either form it into a compact argument or I will tell you why I believe that there might be a better source for that particular point (or I will tell you that I haven't got any time right now to do any editing). The bottom line is this:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

--Swood100 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not restore your edits until you have convinced us they are necessary. You have no consensus to do so. I see no one supporting you here. We told you we don't think they are necessary, and you haven't even told us why they are. We've told you repeatedly. This is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Auntie E. (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are treating this article as if it were an article on a general subject, such as Evolution, in which Behe's theory can be treated as a fringe theory and excluded or truncated because of due weight when compared with the major theories. However, this is an article about a person who is notable because of his fringe theory. Are you saying that in a biography of such a person an exposition of his theory can be excluded on the grounds that it is a fringe theory?

Here are the requirements of WP:NPOV:

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

It is true that the only people who have spoken up so far are those who are trying to enforce their own negative point of view about Behe in this article. But an article cannot ignore the requirements of WP:NPOV, even by consensus.

I described earlier the reason for my changes related to the Doolittle issue. What do you find objectionable about that?--Swood100 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that this is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Is this the page to describe Behe's ideas? If both sides are not going to be portrayed, should we remove all disparagement of Behe's ideas? What exactly belongs on this page?--Swood100 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has entered far into WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT territory. That's a game I don't play. There is no consensus for your edits. You have provided no valid rationale for inclusion. Until you do so I will not debate further. I will, however, revert edits that go against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, although there are more than two parties there appear to be only two sides, so Wikipedia:Third opinion appears to be available. Would you agree to that?--Swood100 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I support swood100, I think he is correct in including the quotes. Consensus is not required for the edits, a proper argument against them is. Simonm223 have not made a proper argument against, otherwise I would support removal. You Simonm223 are the one WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT as far as I can see. 65.175.224.90 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some general rules

From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

1. Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.
2. While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.
3. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.

From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

1. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

1. Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view

--Swood100 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues

This article has serious BLP issues.

1. The statement "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community.[3][4][5", is not supported by the cites, none of which are reliable sources qualified to speak for "the scientific community". At best this is [WP:SYN] which is completely inappropriate for an WP:BLP. Reword or remove
2. "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement.
3. "Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution". Cites a wikilink. WP is not WP:RS should be removed.
4. "Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Unsourced
5. "Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge" - Providing a number of cites none of which make this statement, to justify the statement is OR/SYN.
6. The statement "In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box, which was rejected by the scientific community." is unsupported and probably unsupportable. Say specifically who rejected it or find a statement from a scientific body qualified to speak for the scientific community.
7. The first paragraph of the "Darwins Black Box" section is OR. One of the references is broken, the other goes to an infidel.org book review which is not an appropriate a RS for a BLP.
8. "Furthermore, Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[21] gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method.[22][23]" - impugns the authors motives. One is tempted to use the "L" word to describe this statement. Cites don't help here. You need to quote a secondary source so that it doesn't appear that it is WP who is making this charge.
9. "Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution." This entire paragraph is unsourced and needs to be removed or sourced.

When writing BLP's one must be hyper cautious when making statements about a person's work that could affect their livelihood. Some highlights from WP:BLP which this article fails:

• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively
• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Although per WP:BP these entries should be removed immediately and without discussion, I am posting this as a courtesy to interested editors to provide an opportunity to resolve these issues.

In addition, the entire article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone. See WP:Words_to_avoid for hints on improving this aspect of the article. I would suggest that much of the material here doesn't belong in a biography and should be moved to the article on ID where editors have more latitude to discuss scientific controversies without running into BLP restrictions. JPatterson (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the above I have removed unsourced or non-RS sourced material. With minor exceptions I've not attempted to fix the holes this leaves in the article which I will leave to someone familiar with the subject matter. Editors reverting the above edits or adding new material should be prepared to defend the addition at the appropriate notice board per WP:BLP JPatterson (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's fix this article

I agree with Swood100 that this article reads like a propaganda piece. I understand that the editors disagree with his ideas. But that does not excuse the sniping that runs through much of the article. Some of the more serious problems:

• Criticism of Behe is sprinkled throughout the article. The effect is that when we attempt to understand what his views are we are constantly interrupted by reminders that he is wrong (or at least in the minority). This reads like an attempt to shout him down. I suggest moving most if it into a section entitled "Criticism of His Views".

• The statement that all of the other biologists in his university department have disavowed his views (a statement which I have clarified) does not belong in the subheading about his education. This is criticism of his views. It has been placed here to offset his academic qualifications.

• The section "Promotion of irreducible complexity and intelligent design" is confusing. It appears to make a diversion into speculation as to the motives of those who proposed I.D. I think this section should be rewritten to explain the role of Michael Behe in the development of I.D.

• This section should also explain how Phillip E. Johnson is related to Behe's "Promotion of irredible complexity and intelligent design". If the only relationship is that they both wrote books on the subject, then the reference should be removed (since this is not an article about I.D.).

• The section "Darwin's Black Box" contains a speculative (and highly cynical) theory as to why Behe wrote a popular book.

• In many cases, the views of Behe's opponents are described or can be inferred from the criticism which they level against him, but his views remain obscure. This makes it particularly difficult to interpret the quotes from the Dover decision. I am pretty sure that many of the 'damaging admissions' are in fact his espoused views. They may seem inconsistent with his views only because they are juxtaposed with views which, unknown to us, he rejects.

I do not believe that adding more rebuttals from Behe will help. Doing so would simply make the article more confusing than it already is. Instead it needs to be reorganized so that the reader can clearly see what his views are, to what extent they differ from mainstream thought, and to what extent his opponents have addressed his points.

Chappell (talk) 9 January 2010

Any comments re the BLP issues raised above? I've been going through the cites and many are are not of sufficient quality to be used in a BLP. If no one raises their hand to address these issues in a few hours, I'm going to start removing poorly sourced content. We can then add stuff back in to an article restructured to your proposal which is a good approach. The article as it stands is a WP:Coatrack for a critique of a theory that is and should be addressed elsewhere. There is no doubt that we need to make clear that his theories are not widely accepted but it needs to be done with excellent sources an in accordance with WP:BP. JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of Behe's involvement is whitewashing, as is the removal of much of the material critical of his viewpoints. Some of your changes seem acceptable, but overall the net impact to the article is negative. Per BRD, you should be discussing the changes here, not reverting back to your changes. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. As of Jan. there is a push to clean up the BLP space. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced material and editors are to be "firm" in their insistence on well sourced material. And please note the burden of proof for re-insertion is with the editor re-inserting. The reverting editor did not attempt to justify the sourcing as required. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, you object to the "wholesale removal of Behe's involvement" and call it "whitewashing". To what are you referring? If you mean the section about his involvement in the promotion of I.D., then of course it shouldn't be removed. Well actually, it probably should be removed until someone can rewrite it to more clearly explain what his involvement was (with appropriate sources, of course).

The problem is that right now it is so vague it sounds weaselly. There is a large paragraph which seems to suggest that I.D. is a conspiracy to sneak religion into the classroom, a conspiracy in which Behe may have had some involvement. I say may have had some involvement because he isn't even mentioned until more than half way through where we learn that he went to some kind of meeting ("at Pajaro Dunes") where he presented an idea. A "supplementary textbook" called Of Pandas and People swims into view. Somebody edited it. Who? Behe? It seems that Behe is somehow connected with one Philip E. Johnson (helpfully identified as "a lawyer"). How exactly? What exactly is the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars"?

The last paragraph really puzzling. We finally learn that Behe and the Pandas are at least somewhat connected. We are told that chapter which he wrote for this book presents basically the same (unspecified) idea as he presented in an (unspecified) chapter of Darwin's Black Box, and Behe agrees. But, why are we supposed to be surprised that he expressed the same idea twice?

Note that I am not asking you all to answer my questions here. I am asking you to fix the article so that they either do not arise or are answered there.

Chappell (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Further note to one of the OP's comments - critical comments generally should be placed in the same section as the view. If the subject's view is in the minority, that should be clearly stated with the view. Ravensfire (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure but they need to sourced properly. OR and SYN no longer make the grade here. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just spent time studying the Richard Dawkins page where the critical comments are presented as Ravensfire describes. It seems to work, so I withdraw my objection. The difference is that that page is well done while this page is a mess. Dawkins' views are clearly described while Behe's views are described wholly inadequately, sometimes in one sentence, then there is a much longer description of the criticism, and then there are even longer quotes from him as a rebuttal to some narrow point in the criticism. This style is confusing and uninformative in the extreme. In several cases this 'discussion' wanders far from the theme of the subheading.Chappell (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to whitewash the page, but misprepresenting sources in edit summaries is out of line. I don't like seeing sourced content deleted as "unsourced." Washington Post, NCSE, New Scientist, a US court decision are reliable sources. Even Panda's Thumb and Talkreason. Please re-add the properly sourced content. Auntie E. (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the trouble to edit in a series so that any objections could be raised on a point be point bases. I was very careful to check sources but it is possible I made a mistake. If you would like to re-insert some material feel free but be prepared to justify your sources. Note that court transcripts are primary sources which must be used with great caution. You can not draw conclusions based on primary sources nor say things like "the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony". Both are by definition OR, not allowed in a regular article much less a BLP. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion, I would reword the the lead paragraph to something like

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and author best known for his theory of irreducible complexity criticizing some aspects of evolutionary theory that is held by the vast majority of scientist. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

This solves the problem of juxaposing the two opposing views without introducing difficult to source statements. The statement on evolution doesn't have to have a reference since it is in the lead and presumably would be expanded upon in the article (see WP:LEAD). I would also suggest again that this is not the best place to proxy the evolution v creationist battle. If it were me, per WP:SS, I'd have a section summarizing his views and their critique with a link to the main article on irreducible complexity . Another short summary section for the book and its critique, linking to the main article on that topic. The section on "the wedge" or whatever its called has interesting information not covered elsewhere so it should stay although it could use a good clean up. As it stands there's too much back and forth that is irrelevant to a biography. In any case, I don't have a dog in the hunt so don't shoot the messenger. I'm just on BLP patrol. JPatterson (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Each edit must be discussed

Many things were removed from this article that should not have been removed. I reverted back to the last consensus version. I'm in favor of moving forward, trimming, rewriting, etc. but it absolutely must be done with consensus and not unilaterally. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced and non-RS sourced material. Editors are to be "very firm" in there insistence on solid sources and the onus for providing evidence to support re-insertion lies with you, the re-inserting editor. I've added a BLP dispute tag to the article page. It appears this WP:Coatrack is going to require admin attention. JPatterson (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed statements that were very well-sourced. Since you have not established that you understand WP:RS, you will need to discuss with other editors before going on this whitewashing campaign again. I encourage you to find an administrator to help with this discussion. The more eyes the better. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've re-inserted material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, OR and/or SYN as outlined above. You must provide evidence for your contention that this material is well sourced, per WP:BLP. For example, one can not support the contention that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community" with an opinion piece by a non-scientist (ref 1) who doesn't make that claim, a WP piece that's not on point(ref 2), and an article by an non-notable author on a non-RS website(ref 3). And none of these references make the claim, true as it may be, that "[Behe's theories] have been rejected by the scientific community". Stringing references together to make a point none of them make explicitly in their own right is the definition of WP:SYN. The material I removed, on both sides, all have similar issues. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can respect the synthesis issue, but let's talk about the flip-side. None of Behe's theories have been accepted by the scientific community. He's a pariah, an outcast in his own university, which took the unusual step of publicly repudiating him and saying that his entire field is unscientific on its face. Would it be better to list each of his theories individually, and then show that each individual theory has been rejected? Or would people then claim that the article was being devoted to demolishing ID instead of being an article about Behe?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the SYN issue is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, JP. I'm willing to consider new references, but removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me like gamingto be paradoxical. Let's find new sources that we all agree are good and move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that verifiability and not truth is the standard for inclusion. See WP:V and WP:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. Also, please WP:AGF. JPatterson (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above for changes to the lead that avoid the BLP SYN issues and also some suggestions for structuring the article per WP:SS to make it more encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not here to say how the article should be written, it is not a subject I'm familiar with or interested in. I am just insisting that it follow the clearly stated policy wrt sourcing. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Dover court case section is probably due some trimming for WP:UNDUE. There's a lot of quotes from Behe that the judge used in his ruling. I think we can replace most with "quoted extensively by the judge" and include one or two that seem to be fairly important. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Somebody has clearly got so worked up about Behe's theories that they insist on having a refutation of them in the intro, taking up more space than the rest of the intro put together. This is clearly not balanced and should be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that point-by-point refutations are rarely the best. Of course, we should keep some criticism in. WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims may be of service to us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have adjusted the lede. More adjustment could be beneficial. Please help! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think more than a single sentence opposing Behe's views are necessary in the lede. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have one compound sentence and the second half is essentially a vague statement about Lehigh University's statement which was made in direct response to Behe. Is that okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the second half necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Lehigh University? I think it is somewhat remarkable that the university made a statement explicitly about the subject of intelligent design because of this person. Maybe we could make it even shorter... let me try. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I failed in making it shorter, but I did make it more relevant, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

per #2 in Blp Issues above, "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" is unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. JPatterson (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added "author" back into the intro, he's fairly well known for the books. I also slightly shortened the case mention by removing the "extensively cited by the judge". That is in the case section and shouldn't be in the intro. I also tweaked the wording some to indicate he's testified in several cases. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is mentioned. The Department explicitly mentions Behe in the statement. We even have the IDers themselves acknowledging that this is the reason: [3]. Would you like to include that? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But again, it does not say it was prompted by "Behe's high-profile advocacy". That's OR. Nor does it say that in the reference you provided. JPatterson (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been tweaked. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't addressed the BLP sourcing issues outlined above. JPatterson (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've brought so many issues, and the ones I've looked at don't seem to be issues at all - they are correctly referenced (the text doesn't have to appear verbatim in the source). This makes it hard to asses which have merit. Please just pick one or two to start with, and explain clearly what the problem is and why the supplied references, in your opinion, fail - because I just don't see it. Verbal chat 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it the other way. Pick one from the list below (not the first three - 1 has already been discussed and is clearly WP:SYNTH, 2 is fixed and 3 is a minor point) and show how the analysis is incorrect. And yes, paraphrasing a source is fine but it has to be a paraphrase. You can't make a source say something it doesn't. Nor can you "read between the lines" and make explicit something you tthink is implicit in the text.JPatterson (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box section

This section is nearly half of the article, and really needs to be trimmed some. A significant amount of the length is from the many long quotes from the book, from critics and from Behe's responses to criticism. I think most of those quotes can be removed, with the critical comments and responses replaced by summaries. There is an article for the book already, so I don't think this section needs to be quite so long. Thoughts before I start up the weed whacker and go trimming? Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues Redeux

I'm posting this here again with greater detail so as to be able to link from BLP/N because we're not supposed to post problematic material there.

1. Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community - As discussed above, the souces provided are non-RS and the claim here is a classic WP:SYN. None of these articles support the claim explicitly and none of the authors can speak for the scientific community.
2. and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy - unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. - fixed but ref [7] is not on point.
3. Behe is married to Celeste Behe, and they have nine children[8] who are homeschooled by Celeste in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[9] - Minor point but the cite is seven years old so the homeschooling bit, besides the privacy issue (we normally do not mention where a subjects kids go to school), is probably incorrect by now.
4. Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. - ref is a wikilink
   1. No, it's actually a video. The ref includes a link to the article about the video, but it's the video, not the Wikipedia article.
5. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. - unsourced
   1. Does this quote seem sufficient support for this statement: Behe’s signature contribution to ID has been ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC), the claim that complex biological objects comprising functionally integrated parts, such as a bacterial flagellum, could not have been produced by natural selection but must have been deliberately and intelligently designed.Forrest, Barbara C. (2007). "Biochemistry by design". Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 32 (7): 301–310. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2007.06.001. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)[4]
6. After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms. OR - not in provided sources.
   1. Matzke p. 378; "The actual label "intelligent design" was was adopted in a decision made my the editors of the Pandas books, in direct response to the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards decision that rules 'creation science" unconstitutional."
7. The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design." OR - not in provided sources.
   1. Matzke 381-383; Humes 284-286
8. "In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial - one reference is a blog, the other a primary source (trial transcript)
9. Furthermore,Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[18] gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method - Very problematic. Impugns the motive of the subject. removed from article [5]
10. Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. - unsourced OR
11. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.[19], source points to a nolonger existing web article.
12. This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.' - More OR. The statement or anything like it is not found in cited reference.
13. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. - unsourced OR
14. Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. unsourced weasel
15. Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to evolution. - source is a web site article. Maybe ok
16. Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism." - OR
    1. [6] Talk Reason is certainly a reliable enough source for an approximate count of page numbers in a book.
17. Dover testimony section - This entire section appears to be OR based on primary sources (court transcripts)
    1. Primary sources ≠ OR. Content is supported by Humes' chapter 15 (pp. 297-315), although the specific quotes are (quite properly) taken from the court transcripts.
18. Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns. The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books. - source is a blog

JPatterson (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the reference handy, but most of this can be sourced to Matzke's chapter in Ruse's 2009 book. Will dig it up later if no one else has access to it. Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, Guettarada! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'd like to put discussion beyond a single comment inserted into the list above (as you have done) here so as to maintain readability. I've switched to a numbered list for easy reference. In order to get it to format correctly I had to change your input from '**' to '##'. Hope that's ok. Re 4, My mistake. I've stuck the entry in the list. Re 16, ok but I would reject the editorializing ("polemical attack") as non-encyclopedic and not supported in your cite, which uses the (also non-encyclopedic) term "assails". The article in many places uses language one would expect to find on an op-ed page and not in a high quality encyclopedia.

Re the Dover section:

It is true that Primary sources ≠ OR. But analysis based on primary sources is OR. Take the first sentence: "In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science.". I count 5 claims here. The second sentence, "Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.", is a weasel with an addition 4 or 5 claims depending on how one counts. This kind of analysis is by definition OR based on primary sources forbidden in articles much less BLPs. If the claims are supported elsewhere references beyond the primary sources need to be provided. JPatterson (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in formatting. Makes things easier to discuss. As for the comments on OR, don't worry about it too much - I may disagree with your interpretation, but I'm happy to work on improving sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indented comments not in italics are mine.

• Matzke, Nick (2009) "But Isn't It Creationism? The Beginnings of "Intelligent Design"in the Midst of the Arkansasand Louisiana Litigation" pp. 377-413 in Robert T. Pennock and Michael Ruse. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Promethus Books, Amherst, New York.
• Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battel for America's Soul. Ecco, NY.

Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, past my bedtime, but this is an important source. Guettarda (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has challenged #9 above which from a legal stand-point is the most problematic I have deleted this sentence from the article. JPatterson (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to it at some point. I feel pretty sure that can be attributed to a reliable source. But which one? And is it in my personal collection? Sucks that Control-F doesn't work with dead tree sources... Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda re 5: It certainly works for me. JPatterson (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On Whitewashing

Some seem to believe that the demands that this article be rewritten to conform to various Wikipedia policies are a smokescreen for Behe apologists. They seem to think that the article as it is does a good job of showing Behe to be a nut-case or a charlatan.

Leaving aside the question of whether the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to persuade, I think they overestimate the article's persuasive power. I suggest they try to read it through in the role of devil's advocate. Much of what was previously damning evidence now looks like spin-doctoring. Many of the 'talking points' are now simply unexplained digressions or trivia. All the reader comes away with is the idea that someone feels threatened by Behe's ideas and would prefer that we not examine them seriously.

Ask yourself, could you, strictly as an intellectual exercise, re-spin this article to present Behe in a favourable light without substantially changing the selection of facts presented? Maybe you could cast him in the role of courageous dissident persecuted by a conformist community. It is an exciting and moving plot. It goes something like this: The narrow minded scientific community pursues its atheistic agenda at all cost! Dissent must not be tolerated! Since they are unable to adequately answer Behe's arguments, the biology faculty of his university takes the unusual step of publishing a rambling statement repudiating his views without addressing them. His status as a scientist is inconvenient, but no matter, his ideas are, with the stroke of a pen, defined as non-science!

The section on the court case presents no more difficulty for our spin-doctor. The case was lost not because Behe's ideas were in any way uncompelling but because they were held to a standard of proof which his opponents, by their own admission, cannot meet for their own ideas. The implication of his testimony (that the [scientific] theory of evolution is merely a reflection of a particular school of thought on the question of the existence of God) were simply too much of a political hot potato, and so the judge punted.

Why is it so easy to spin the facts in the article either way? Because most of them have not been selected to be genuinely informative. They are simply hooks on which speculation is hung.

The Wikipedia rules require us to use only verifiable information about Behe, his views, and the views of his critics. The existing article is short on information and so leaves most of the truly interesting questions about these conflicting views unanswered. I would like to know whether any evolutionary biologists consider any of his criticism to be valid objections pointing to the need for furtherer research. I would also like to understand his relationship to the I.D. movement. Did he start it? Is he a leader, or is he perhaps a tool on the edge of the movement?

The section on Dover could could be very interesting, if improved. Unhappily, the information about Behe's testimony seems to have been selected for juicyness rather than informative power. Questions abound: Did he take a position on the central issue of the case? For example, did he claim that I. D. should be discussed in school? Did he claim that evolution as the origin of species should or should not be taught in school? How did the judge “rely heavily on his testimony” but rule against the side which called him? Had Behe been forced to say things which he did not want so say? Or maybe Behe made other statements which the judge could not accept? If so, what where they? Or maybe the ruling was on narrow legal grounds. Currently we are expected to use our imagination to interpret Behe's statements in a way embarrassing to him.

Answering these questions with the help of reliable sources requires more effort than drawing cynical conclusions. It will also almost certainly paint a more nuanced picture of Lehe that is currently presented in the article. Anyone who wants the article to be a counter-blast to Lehe will be unhappy with the result. But, it will unquestionably be a better, more informative encyclopedia article.

Chappell (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some good points in there but please see WP:TLDR. The accusation of whitewashing shows an appalling inability to WP:AGF. That aside, I think many editors are working at cross purposes to their goal. A reader who is convinced one way or another re ID or IC or whatever is unpersuadable. Those who come here with an uninformed view will immediately recognize an article like this as a partisan hit piece and discount its content accordingly. The most important and often overlooked aspect of WP:NPOV is dispassion. Encyclopedia's should be written in an above-the-fray, non-judgmental tone. The facts speak for themselves. Passionate embellishments only serve to weaken the article and discredit WP. JPatterson (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Homeschooling

Doesn't it seem a bit WP:UNDUE to refer to the Behe children's home-schooling? Eugene (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, it's a general biography piece, so it paints a picture of who he is. 65.175.224.90 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Some of the world greatest thinkers have been schooled at home. Furthermore, kids schooled at home perform better at university that ANY other group. It is a tribute to Behe. Public school alumnists are....less than average ...but they think public school is better.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/9034-canadian-study-confirms-advantages-of-homeschooling http://www.degreeinfo.com/off-topic-discussions/35831-so-how-do-homeschooled-students-do-when-they-go-college.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New source

John C. Avise Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome PNAS 2010

Useful analysis and commentary in a very reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Class?

With 61 citations and many other sources cited, and obviously a lot of work and controversy, I am hesitating to suggest it, but perhaps this article is better than Start class now. I leave it to other editors to decide what class it should be. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rejection by the "scientific community"

I added the bolded portion this phrase from the second paragraph: Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by many members of the scientific community.

My edit was reverted with this remark: "the community as a whole has rejected his ideas as indicated by several sources."

Yet looking at the cited sources, none of them even make that claim. Even if they did, they would clearly not be reliable in making such a claim, because there is no authoritative voice for the "scientific community." (Even the scientific community article states as much.) Thus, while one can easily document that this person or that group has rejected Behe's work, it is impossible to state with any verifiability that the "scientific community as a whole has rejected his ideas." After all, Behe himself (not to mention plenty of other ID proponents) is a member of that community. He is a biochemistry professor at a university, which is a pretty standard qualification for inclusion. He and other ID proponents may well be bad scientists, but they are scientists, nonetheless.

Not only is this claim of a wholesale rejection by the entire scientific community demonstrably untrue on logical grounds, but it's not even supported by the sources cited next to the phrase. EmausPriester (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think something like "rejected by an overwhelming majority of scientists," or of "biologists," might be better--it indicates that the rejection by professional scientists is nearly universal (which, as far as I can tell, it is--Behe is so prominent because he is the exception that proves the rule: he's one of a very tiny number of bona fide scientists working in a relevant area who support the claim of intelligent design as science. Are there even three other biochemists who support his arguments?). "Many members of the scientific community" doesn't convey the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't consider irreducible complexity as a legimate scientific idea, theory, insight, research program, what-have you. BTfromLA (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be more accurate language, but there would need to be some new sources to cite, indicating some kind of reliable survey of scientists' opinions on the subject, not just individual articles against it. EmausPriester (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist son

Added it to the article but dont know how to cite links http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dngag/iama_son_of_michael_behe_the_catholic_biochemist/?sort=confidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.93 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is not credible. You will have to find a new one. It will need the son's name, and must be a source that meets the requirements at WP:SOURCES. Sorry. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey Dokey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.246 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradDill9Eever (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)