This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I have removed several unsourced quotes from persons assoicated with the CSC, and materials that violate WP:NPOV, specifically relating to funding of the program. Truthologist 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV Tag added to the Teach the Controversy section. I took a peek at the main article and it appears to have a much more neutral tone. Specifically have a problem with the first sentence especially the unsourced "theory in crisis" and "undermining" in the second. I think this section should resemble the main article in neutral tone and content. Right now it seems like it was written from a one-sided point of view. I'm going to make the edit myself, let me know if there are any problems with it. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between Category:Intelligent design and Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.-- ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence reads: In an immediate response to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard against creation science being taught in United States public school science classes, the term intelligent design was coined as a substitute in the textbook Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989
My questions: 1. ID is a substitute for what? 2. How can the term ID be a substitute in the first edition of a book? Where did ID substitute for what? Northfox ( talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing Casey Luskin be merged here, per WP:MERGE rationales 'Text' & 'Context', and also because that article demonstrates, at best, borderline notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article C. John Collins cites no third-party sources establishing notability, so I'm proposing merging it here (probably as a bare redirect). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep- Clear POV atheist trying to obliterate creationism wiki page. andycjp ( talk) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins. In any case, the Center for Science and Culture is not the appropriate topic to merge the article with, even if a merge were appropriate. The subject in question works for Covenant Theological Seminary, not the CSC. I propose to split the article C. John Collins from Center for Science and Culture and develop the article further. Cuicmac ( talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— Cuicmac ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Perhaps other editors would like to comment. Cuicmac ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose splitting. There was a clear consensus to merge and no evidence of notability has since been produced to justify reversing that decision.-- Charles ( talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The article says
In another instance, the CSC frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with Henry F. Schaefer, a CSC fellow, and chemist at the University of Georgia. Critics[who?] allege that CSC is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" since Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.
It is possible, even likely, that the CSC learned of Schaefer's nominations for the Nobel from Schaefer himself. When he was at Berkeley, he was well-known for trying to bully other chemists into nominating him for the prize, and for contacting them and asking whether or not they had done so. (He also pressured members of his research group to participate in group prayer.)
I know this is original research, but I'm just sayin', on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Center for Science and Culture. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
I have removed several unsourced quotes from persons assoicated with the CSC, and materials that violate WP:NPOV, specifically relating to funding of the program. Truthologist 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV Tag added to the Teach the Controversy section. I took a peek at the main article and it appears to have a much more neutral tone. Specifically have a problem with the first sentence especially the unsourced "theory in crisis" and "undermining" in the second. I think this section should resemble the main article in neutral tone and content. Right now it seems like it was written from a one-sided point of view. I'm going to make the edit myself, let me know if there are any problems with it. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between Category:Intelligent design and Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.-- ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence reads: In an immediate response to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard against creation science being taught in United States public school science classes, the term intelligent design was coined as a substitute in the textbook Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989
My questions: 1. ID is a substitute for what? 2. How can the term ID be a substitute in the first edition of a book? Where did ID substitute for what? Northfox ( talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing Casey Luskin be merged here, per WP:MERGE rationales 'Text' & 'Context', and also because that article demonstrates, at best, borderline notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article C. John Collins cites no third-party sources establishing notability, so I'm proposing merging it here (probably as a bare redirect). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep- Clear POV atheist trying to obliterate creationism wiki page. andycjp ( talk) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins. In any case, the Center for Science and Culture is not the appropriate topic to merge the article with, even if a merge were appropriate. The subject in question works for Covenant Theological Seminary, not the CSC. I propose to split the article C. John Collins from Center for Science and Culture and develop the article further. Cuicmac ( talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— Cuicmac ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Perhaps other editors would like to comment. Cuicmac ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose splitting. There was a clear consensus to merge and no evidence of notability has since been produced to justify reversing that decision.-- Charles ( talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The article says
In another instance, the CSC frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with Henry F. Schaefer, a CSC fellow, and chemist at the University of Georgia. Critics[who?] allege that CSC is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" since Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.
It is possible, even likely, that the CSC learned of Schaefer's nominations for the Nobel from Schaefer himself. When he was at Berkeley, he was well-known for trying to bully other chemists into nominating him for the prize, and for contacting them and asking whether or not they had done so. (He also pressured members of his research group to participate in group prayer.)
I know this is original research, but I'm just sayin', on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Center for Science and Culture. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)