Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups


This article is a good likeness of Darwin's theory itself, silly nonsense[edit]

Reading in the thread below the justification for this article is the claim that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is not actually rooted in science. But I see nothing in the article refuting the peer reviewed science used to support the organization.

FOR EXAMPLE: Scientist Douglas Axe has peer reviewed published data that PROVES that random mutations could not possibly produce new proteins to account for complex life on earth. I see nothing in this article refuting that data.

Who does the author of this article think he's fooling? Who do you think would even care to read this article? 99.9% of the people who want to know more about "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" are people interested in the movement like myself. And you have just proved to me beyond all doubt Darwinism now needs propaganda for support. The idea that bacteria slowly turns into people isn't even a coherent idea, never made any sense to me. I wasn't aware there were hundreds, I think thousands of scientists openly agreeing with that thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.216.133.128 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


Way too much bias in this article to be wikipedia[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction to this article is condescending, treating the almost 1,000 scientists with Ph.D's who signed the document as if they were children who were duped by creationists manufacturing dissent. A neutral rewrite is called for in the interest of truth and fair play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.201.217 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mikearion:

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

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


From mikearion back at you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you personally think the credentials are or are not is irrelevant. You do not have the authoritative judgement to rule out a source only because it disagrees with your personal standing. You are ruling out sources only because they do not fit with your consideration of qualifications, which is irrelevant. By forcibly removing this information, you are essentially sweeping it under the rug and hiding it like secret police. If you stood for truth at all, you would allow the content and statements that go against your beliefs to show and let people sort it for themselves.

The reason they do not have degree fields related to "evolutionary biology" is because no such thing exists. There is no degree or specific study with any regards to evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.131.243 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have to agree fully with the original poster. This stinks of bias isn't written from a neutral point of view. About half of the introduction may have some justification in a criticism section, but doesn't belong in the main article. --41.150.97.64 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references to 'neo-creationism'.[edit]

"Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,714 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Undid revision 566614355 by Gnu Ordure (talk). No good reason for this change, and it's the exact language from the source.)"

DV, if you didn't understand the reason I gave for my edit, you could have asked me to explain.

First, bear in mind that this article doesn't require this quote from Robert Pennock. He is cited as a representative of the scientific community, so another quote from another representative would be an acceptable alternative. However, I chose not to replace his problematic quote, I've just edited it in order to remove the problem.

Here's the problem:

I was discussing this Wikipedia article with some Christians, and they said that the article was biased because it used pejorative terms such as 'neo-creationism'.

Personally I'd never heard the term before, even though I've been following the creationism/ID debate for twenty years. But the WP article on neo-creationism says that "Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term".

OK? Now consider that the term neo-creationism is unnecessary. For instance, it doesn't occur in the rest of this article, only in the quote by Pennock.

Therefore, I agreed with my Christian friends; the use of the quote by Pennock was unnecessarily confrontational and evidence of bias.

I could have removed the quote entirely and replaced it with another one from someone else, but I chose to simply edit it to remove the references to neo-creationism. The gist of the passage is essentially the same, and Pennock is still quoted accurately.

That's the reason for my edit, DV.

Give me a good reason why I shouldn't re-instate it.

Gnu Ordure (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. The term "neo-creationist" is used by reliable sources to refer to this movement. Whether your Christian friends find the term offensive is purely their problem, not ours. We go by the terminology used in reliable sources. Your edit removed also the specificity of the quote to some "people such as". For that matter, Intelligent Design proponents dislike being called creationists. And the American Freedom Party hates being called a white supremicist party. That doesn't mean anything here, and our articles on them reflect the usage in the reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For a policy basis, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The only references to neo-creationism in the entire article are in the quote from Pennock. Therefore, it is obviously not necessary to refer to neo-creationism at all, and so WP quoting Pennock can be reasonably perceived by Christians to be aggressive and confrontational.

And I agree with them. That's how it looks to me too. And I'm not a Christian.

My edit doesn't change what Pennock was saying, it merely removes an unnecessary contentious term.

I don't understand why you're objecting to such a minor edit, DV. It's not a big deal, it's about semantics rather than statements of fact. Gnu Ordure (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your version is clumsy and not justified by our policies. You have not convinced me at all the the usage is unnecessarily contentious. Again, whether certain people or you yourself consider it offensive is completely immaterial as far as our policies are concerned. We don't bowdlerize articles to spare the sensivities of people who cannot deal with reality. For us, reality us what appears in reliable independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Gnu, you've got it a bit wrong: Robert T. Pennock isn't cited as a representative of the scientific community, he's cited as a philosopher and an academic expert on philosophy of science, evolution, and the history of creationism. His published works are clear on this development of neo-creationism, a pretence that beliefs are science rather than religion. Both creationism and neo-creationism are opposed by a majority of Christians. Wikipedia shows minority views in the context of expert opinion, not in terms preferred by the minority. . dave souza, talk 22:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DV, I don't edit Wiki very much, so I'm a bit confused at your usage of the first person plural: "our policies", "We don't bowdlerize", etc.

Are you a moderator here, with some kind of authority over me? With the power to reverse my edits, if you want to?


"You have not convinced me at all the the usage is unnecessarily contentious." - See above. Why do I have to convince you, DV? Who made you king? Or moderator.

I've given you a good reason for making an edit which eliminates a potential point of contention without altering the original intent of the quote. It's a win-win, everybody's happy with it. Pennock's point is made, possible pejorative terms are avoided, Christians are happy, what's not to like?

Why are you so unhappy with this solution, DV? Why are you objecting to it so vehemently? I don't get it. Gnu Ordure (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a policy based reason and so did Dave Souza. You provided none. The rest of your comments are uncivil. Do not edit war. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And you failed to answer my reasonable questions as to your status on this site. You then complain that I've been uncivil, without evidence. And you issue orders, as if you were authorized to do so.

In the circumstances, I would like to refer this dispute to an actual WP moderator. Could some impartial reader tell me how to do that? Thanks. Gnu Ordure (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not a "moderator', nor did I claim to be. You "have to convince me" because of WP:CONSENSUS. The only "order" I have given you is not to edit war, which all WP editors are entitled to do. You can try administrator talk:Mann_jess. He's familiar with this topic, and is probably the most understanding and patient administrator you will meet. In fact, he's edited this page before. He's the only adminstrator that has edited it in the last two years, as far as I can tell. However, be prepared to make your case based on WP policies and reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)