The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section. Hrafn42 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking further about it, with a little bit of work, the current 'Campaigns' section could be split up into:
...with each of the new sections providing fertile ground for expansion. Hrafn42 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation.
Hrafn42 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Completely rewritten, so now moot.
Hrafn42 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They spend an enormous amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles.
Hrafn42 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example:
Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried?
Hrafn42 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd Nature is emphatically in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:
An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the National Academy of Sciences as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" . Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science Discovery Institute, 2006. [citation de-refed to be readable]
I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have an opinion? Hrafn42 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The full paragraph from Alberts is: [1]
For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.
(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)
Reasons why this isn't a good example:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Checking the logs, I was reminded that one of the reasons I originally deleted this "example" was that it is OR -- we only have the primary source of the 'Teaching Guide' itself and no secondary source saying that it is an "incomplete quote" (or a problematical quote in any other way) or that it is an example of the "indirect method" (which it seems to be only a rather tangential example of). I have therefore tagged it as OR. Hrafn Talk Stalk 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A further comment: the phrase "incomplete quotation" would appear to be a redundancy, all quotations are incomplete, as otherwise they would be a verbatim recitation of the entire document (book, article, etc). The incompleteness is only problematical when it results in the quotation being out-of-context, or some other form of misrepresentation. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that the 'Teaching Guide' neither mentions "teaching the controversy" nor introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory". It does not deal with the "evidence, both for and against, evolution" of the indirect method, but with the rival views of the definition, and philosophy, of science underlying mainstream Science (i.e. Methodological Naturalism) & ID (i.e. 'Theistic Realism'). But why am I writing all this? People are just going to revert, revert, revert, without bothering to read it. Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or otherwise)? Hrafn42 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.
In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in Free Speech on Evolution appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Stand Up For Science was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the Kansas evolution hearings, and has sunk without a trace. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity runs a very remote second to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Explore Evolution may eventually achieve notability as a textbook, however as a media campaign it has had negligible impact.
I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is not complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my personal view:
Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well. Hrafn Talk Stalk 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a Soviet and Eastern European Studies bachelor and an award-winning sport columnist who has opinions on everything (his own words), such a great source? Northfox ( talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE here), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most notable DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)? Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading a bit further, I'm tending toward 'Academic freedom bills' (or similar) as the title, and the following major milestones:
I'll have a go at getting a sandbox version going for people to look at. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Rough draft is at . [Article is now 'live' -- see below]
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did a head to head comparison between the DI model statute & one of the 2005 Alabama bills and, apart from some minor punctuation differences, I can't see any difference between them. Hrafn Talk Stalk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) The 2006 Alabama bill is also virtually identical (only apparent difference is that it divides one section up into two). Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:
Prominent Institute campaigns have been to ' Teach the Controversy' and, more recently, to allow Critical Analysis of Evolution. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together. Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that Stand Up For Science is officially dead, with its website redirecting to the 'Academic Freedom Petition'. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this?
For example,
In a video interview, Stephen Meyer said,
I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Wikipedia is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.
If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the Discovery Institute and its campaigns for Intelligent Design. And there is a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" (quotes included). The section quotes Judge Jones as saying, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory". This is a denial of the DI position. And this denial is implied to be correct in the article, using the phrase, "has been refuted both in court and academia". This is the assertion that ID is creationism that you said wasn't there.
Myer is not a WP:RS, so his views are irrelevant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Also, Hrafn mentioned the WP:DUE in a way that makes me wonder if he thinks policy requires us to omit any explanation of the D.I. denial. So I'm still wondering if it's okay to mention the D.I.'s own stand on the issue, even if most readers would dismiss it as self-serving. Meyer disagrees with the NCSE and with Judge Jones over whether ID is merely a relabeling. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll be able to hear a 2.5 minute interview in which Meyer elaborates his reasoning. Meyer argues that Creation begins with faith in God & Bible, which it uses to interpret nature. Meyer says (or at any rate claims in that interview) that ID begins by observing nature. Rather than stipulating that God is the Designer (as our friends the YEC's do), Meyer claims to be starting with observations of nature and inferring design. Or as I would put it if allowed to edit the article:
I don't want to change the article from anti-ID to pro-ID. I just want to add a minority view which is relevant, because it is the view of the article primary subject. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:
Odd nature ( talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Another new source They're back!! Jewish Times Odd nature ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was not to merge. -- Hrafn Talk Stalk 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge. -- Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing merging both Free Speech on Evolution and Stand Up For Science to this article. Neither campaign elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns and for the rejection of ID generally (rather than for the claims of these campaigns specifically) -- see their respective talkpages for more detailed discussion. Therefore both would be of questionable notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
propose the reinsertion of my text (deleted by Hrafn). It is not self-published. Zogby International is a reputed nonpartisan polling company, their analysis is sound. Hrafn, wrote in his revert 'there us [sic] no "scientific evidence against"' evolution. Well wikipedia is not here to report truth, only reliable information. And the question by Zogby had similar wording, and the pollsters responded to those questions, so be it. Northfox ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri> Just out of interest, why are they so keen about teaching "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution"? Do they want children taught pangenesis instead of Mendelian genetics, or could it really be that their concern is about modern evolutionary theory, but they don't want to admit it.. Guess so. . dave souza, talk 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Although it is generally accepted that ID is creationism, one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view:
I'd like to ask Dave whether this is a good enough reference. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Brian Alters, the president of the National Center for Science Education‘s board of directors, said in 2006, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." I don't know if that exact number is accurate, but the sentiment is absolutely true--there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. So why can't I find a reliable source that says this? Seriously... this is should be easy. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I found something from Pew: 98% support for evolution, which it calls "near consensus." This seems like hedging to me, as consensus generally doesn't require unanimity. I wonder if we can do better. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just supplied 4 easily found citations for the claims made in the intro. So whoever is going through trying to cast doubt on the claims obviously has an agenda. By doing this they in fact bolster the claims made in the article. Edit: make that 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel tango ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
First the article claims that Ronald Numbers made comments to a newspaper suggesting that he does not think ID is creationism, then it suggests that Numbers stated the exact opposite in one of his books. Which is it? Is the article misrepresenting one of these sources? Did Numbers change his mind at some point? As far as I can tell, the article characterizes Numbers's comments he made to the newspaper accurately, but I don't have Numbers's book, so I can't tell whether the article is correctly characterizing the views he expresses therein. SwineHerd ( talk/ contribs) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
documenting intelligent design as a form of creationismis true. In the book, Numbers indeed documents how knowledgeable people call ID creationism, and also how ID proponents contradict that view, but he never says outright which side he himself agrees with. Maybe he thinks it is his duty as a historian to be sitting on the fence regarding questions like that. Or just to write as if he were.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section. Hrafn42 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking further about it, with a little bit of work, the current 'Campaigns' section could be split up into:
...with each of the new sections providing fertile ground for expansion. Hrafn42 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation.
Hrafn42 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Completely rewritten, so now moot.
Hrafn42 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They spend an enormous amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles.
Hrafn42 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example:
Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried?
Hrafn42 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd Nature is emphatically in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:
An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the National Academy of Sciences as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" . Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science Discovery Institute, 2006. [citation de-refed to be readable]
I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have an opinion? Hrafn42 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The full paragraph from Alberts is: [1]
For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.
(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)
Reasons why this isn't a good example:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Checking the logs, I was reminded that one of the reasons I originally deleted this "example" was that it is OR -- we only have the primary source of the 'Teaching Guide' itself and no secondary source saying that it is an "incomplete quote" (or a problematical quote in any other way) or that it is an example of the "indirect method" (which it seems to be only a rather tangential example of). I have therefore tagged it as OR. Hrafn Talk Stalk 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A further comment: the phrase "incomplete quotation" would appear to be a redundancy, all quotations are incomplete, as otherwise they would be a verbatim recitation of the entire document (book, article, etc). The incompleteness is only problematical when it results in the quotation being out-of-context, or some other form of misrepresentation. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that the 'Teaching Guide' neither mentions "teaching the controversy" nor introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory". It does not deal with the "evidence, both for and against, evolution" of the indirect method, but with the rival views of the definition, and philosophy, of science underlying mainstream Science (i.e. Methodological Naturalism) & ID (i.e. 'Theistic Realism'). But why am I writing all this? People are just going to revert, revert, revert, without bothering to read it. Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or otherwise)? Hrafn42 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.
In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in Free Speech on Evolution appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Stand Up For Science was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the Kansas evolution hearings, and has sunk without a trace. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity runs a very remote second to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Explore Evolution may eventually achieve notability as a textbook, however as a media campaign it has had negligible impact.
I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is not complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my personal view:
Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well. Hrafn Talk Stalk 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a Soviet and Eastern European Studies bachelor and an award-winning sport columnist who has opinions on everything (his own words), such a great source? Northfox ( talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE here), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most notable DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)? Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading a bit further, I'm tending toward 'Academic freedom bills' (or similar) as the title, and the following major milestones:
I'll have a go at getting a sandbox version going for people to look at. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Rough draft is at . [Article is now 'live' -- see below]
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did a head to head comparison between the DI model statute & one of the 2005 Alabama bills and, apart from some minor punctuation differences, I can't see any difference between them. Hrafn Talk Stalk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) The 2006 Alabama bill is also virtually identical (only apparent difference is that it divides one section up into two). Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:
Prominent Institute campaigns have been to ' Teach the Controversy' and, more recently, to allow Critical Analysis of Evolution. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together. Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that Stand Up For Science is officially dead, with its website redirecting to the 'Academic Freedom Petition'. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this?
For example,
In a video interview, Stephen Meyer said,
I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Wikipedia is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.
If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the Discovery Institute and its campaigns for Intelligent Design. And there is a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" (quotes included). The section quotes Judge Jones as saying, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory". This is a denial of the DI position. And this denial is implied to be correct in the article, using the phrase, "has been refuted both in court and academia". This is the assertion that ID is creationism that you said wasn't there.
Myer is not a WP:RS, so his views are irrelevant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Also, Hrafn mentioned the WP:DUE in a way that makes me wonder if he thinks policy requires us to omit any explanation of the D.I. denial. So I'm still wondering if it's okay to mention the D.I.'s own stand on the issue, even if most readers would dismiss it as self-serving. Meyer disagrees with the NCSE and with Judge Jones over whether ID is merely a relabeling. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll be able to hear a 2.5 minute interview in which Meyer elaborates his reasoning. Meyer argues that Creation begins with faith in God & Bible, which it uses to interpret nature. Meyer says (or at any rate claims in that interview) that ID begins by observing nature. Rather than stipulating that God is the Designer (as our friends the YEC's do), Meyer claims to be starting with observations of nature and inferring design. Or as I would put it if allowed to edit the article:
I don't want to change the article from anti-ID to pro-ID. I just want to add a minority view which is relevant, because it is the view of the article primary subject. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:
Odd nature ( talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Another new source They're back!! Jewish Times Odd nature ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was not to merge. -- Hrafn Talk Stalk 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge. -- Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing merging both Free Speech on Evolution and Stand Up For Science to this article. Neither campaign elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns and for the rejection of ID generally (rather than for the claims of these campaigns specifically) -- see their respective talkpages for more detailed discussion. Therefore both would be of questionable notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
propose the reinsertion of my text (deleted by Hrafn). It is not self-published. Zogby International is a reputed nonpartisan polling company, their analysis is sound. Hrafn, wrote in his revert 'there us [sic] no "scientific evidence against"' evolution. Well wikipedia is not here to report truth, only reliable information. And the question by Zogby had similar wording, and the pollsters responded to those questions, so be it. Northfox ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri> Just out of interest, why are they so keen about teaching "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution"? Do they want children taught pangenesis instead of Mendelian genetics, or could it really be that their concern is about modern evolutionary theory, but they don't want to admit it.. Guess so. . dave souza, talk 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Although it is generally accepted that ID is creationism, one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view:
I'd like to ask Dave whether this is a good enough reference. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Brian Alters, the president of the National Center for Science Education‘s board of directors, said in 2006, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." I don't know if that exact number is accurate, but the sentiment is absolutely true--there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. So why can't I find a reliable source that says this? Seriously... this is should be easy. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I found something from Pew: 98% support for evolution, which it calls "near consensus." This seems like hedging to me, as consensus generally doesn't require unanimity. I wonder if we can do better. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just supplied 4 easily found citations for the claims made in the intro. So whoever is going through trying to cast doubt on the claims obviously has an agenda. By doing this they in fact bolster the claims made in the article. Edit: make that 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel tango ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
First the article claims that Ronald Numbers made comments to a newspaper suggesting that he does not think ID is creationism, then it suggests that Numbers stated the exact opposite in one of his books. Which is it? Is the article misrepresenting one of these sources? Did Numbers change his mind at some point? As far as I can tell, the article characterizes Numbers's comments he made to the newspaper accurately, but I don't have Numbers's book, so I can't tell whether the article is correctly characterizing the views he expresses therein. SwineHerd ( talk/ contribs) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
documenting intelligent design as a form of creationismis true. In the book, Numbers indeed documents how knowledgeable people call ID creationism, and also how ID proponents contradict that view, but he never says outright which side he himself agrees with. Maybe he thinks it is his duty as a historian to be sitting on the fence regarding questions like that. Or just to write as if he were.