This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't think the change from: " creation science, a religious movement that seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" to " creation science, a movement that integrates science and religion together. The creation science movement seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" is warranted. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Creation Science which says that: "Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion," clearly shows that editing was done from a creationist point of view. A better revision would be "a movement whose critics say is religiously motivated, and which seeks to challenge the validity of" is more from NPOV.
I cut this out of the article. Preserved here in case someone wants to put it elsewhere:
The greatest criticism of Gish's point of view concerning evolution is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, a point that Charles Darwin clearly made in his book. This was called 'On the origin of species' after all, and not 'On the origin of life.' It is claimed by evolutionary biologists that whether life came about by natural or supernatural origins is of no concern for evolution and the theory of evolution.
The best known contemporary evolutionary biologists, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, refuse to debate people like Gish, by claiming that debate is not how science works. Gould and Dawkins claim that, in science, it is not important who is the best debater, it is important who can come up with a theory which best explains the (observed) facts. Gish agrees with this, however, and claims that the real reason evolutionary biologists won't debate is simply because the theory of evolution ends up looking bad. In debates, Gish always focuses primarily on one central thing, that is, discrediting evolutionary theory.
Publications of Gish and other creation scientists on the subject of creationism have normally been refused by mainstream scientific journals. Creationists claim that the reason for this is that 'mainstream science' is simply not open to alternatives to evolution. For example, Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe emailed some science journals to ask them if they would allow him to refute some articles that were negative towards Intelligent Design in a rebuttal article. He disclosed an email that he received from an editor of a science journal (he withheld the name for privacy issues) who seemed to be open to allowing Dr. Behe a rebuttal space, but later had to deny him on the grounds of a collective board decision. In the first email to Dr. Behe, the editor seemed to agree with what creationists often say, that mainstream science was closed minded to 'non-orthodoxy.' The editor states: 'I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy...' [1].
According to most review boards of the journals, creation articles are rejected because the publications do not contain any science. According to the creationists, they are refused because of the journal's commitment to naturalism, and refuse to consider any alternative. As a result of mainstream journals refusing to give creationists a voice, creationary scientists have established their own peer-reviewed journals that do accept publications about creation science, but these are not accepted as having much scientific value by most of the scientific community.
DJ Clayworth 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In reply to the interpolated comment above, yes I do have objections. My objection is exactly the same one that caused me to take the text out in the first place. It's not about Gish and Creations Science, it's just about Creation Science. People can read about that at creation science. If Gish has views that differ from the main body of creation scientists, or if he made and particular contribution to it, then they should be noted, but otherwise this is just duplicating information. DJ Clayworth 07:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What has happened to the reference to Joyce Arthur's article, a published reference which points out that Gish continues to repeat the same false claims even after being publicly corrected? Her article, "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" was published in Skeptic magazine, vol. 4., no. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93 and is online here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
The philosopher Philip Kitcher made a similar point about creationists in general (though was also referring directly to Gish, whom he debated at the University of Minnesota, which is one of several debates where the consensus is that Gish was soundly walloped) in his book The Advancement of Science (pp. 195-196).
I also point out numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Gish's last major work (Creation Scientists Respond to Their Critics) in my review which appeared in the journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith and which is online here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
There's a wealth of published critiques of Gish's work, but very little of it still seems to be referenced in this article. Chris McGowan's book In the Beginning... is another (criticizing Gish on the fossil record). Lippard 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Some mention should be made of Gish's famous bullfrog comment, in which he claimed that if you look at some proteins, human beings appear to be more closely related to bullfrogs than other primates. When asked to provide his sources (by numerous persons over multiple years), Gish repeatedly failed to do so. It turned out that Gish made his statement based on a misunderstanding of a joking comment he heard at a conference. He has never corrected or admitted his error. This is described in Bob Schadewald's "Scientific Creationism and Error" which may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html (There is also other good Gish-related material in the sidebar on that page)
I compare Schadewald's account to Gish's account here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm
My review of Gish's book answering his critics also is a source of some Gish-related material: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html Lippard 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Brian0918, even the talk origins page you gave says, "Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during much of the debate." It seems like a bad idea to take a debate where the evolutionist used false and/or abusive statements such that even several other evolutionists objected and claim it as a victory. Why don't you use the Saladin debate instead? Anyways, I can't find the Plimer debate's transcript online. It would be nice to use a debate that can actually be referenced and that readers can look at for themselves. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The booklet was (and perhaps still is) being sold by the ICR, and there were plenty of other witnesses to the booklet's being sold there at the event, as well as afterward (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html, already referenced in this Wikipedia article). I haven't researched Gish's specific rebuttal claim about Kitcher's diagram, but Gish's discussions of the reptile-to-mammal fossil record are extremely inaccurate; see, e.g., http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm Lippard 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be a tautology, and to contain another:
"Another is creationists "loading" the audience with supporters, leading to a tendency for the audience to have pre-conceived beliefs in favor of creationism."
I don't find it surprising that creationist supporters have "pre-conceived beliefs" (and what are beliefs if not pre-conceived?) in favour of creationism.
This doesn't seem to "unfairly slant the debate" either, as the audience doesn't determine the quality of arguments on show.
Finally, this leaves only one example of the "number of factors"
Can someone come up with something better on the debates, or perhaps remove the reference?
User:Arbusto, the section you added is as long as the rest of the article put together. Wouldn't it be enough to provide a link to talk.origins and add a sentence briefly outlining his arguments they they refute? Ashmoo 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr Gish appears in Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, when he meets him as he is a Googlewhack. I'm too busy at the moment and am not sure where to insert that information, but it should be there somewhere. — G a ry Kirk | talk! 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the Sydney debate in section 3? Since the account given does seem to have a slight POV, at least it should be sourced and , perhaps, a few adjectives removed, such as "famous". I particularly ask for a source because thre seems to be something missing, as I cannot decipher "Plimer's obtaining of a live electrical current"
Ditto for the other parts of section 3.
"Opponents object" absolutely needs a source: is this being asserted for opinions of Gish in contrast to opinions about other creationists, or are the opponents characterizing his arguments as a representative creationist argument.
In section 2, are the quotations based on a transcript? or a recording? (or, perhaps, memory?)
Are perhaps the opponents, one person in one book? Again, are these arguements being refuted as peculiar to Gish? Is he perhaps the first creationist to have discussed the Neaderthal and Australopitecus material? Or is it a common argument?
And, this is undoubtedly be my fault, but I do not understand the last section. Is it saying that in the book Gorman met Gish? or in real-life? If it is after. not in, the book, a source is needed.
And in the bio, if he is alive, is he still working for the ICR?
I wrrte as one who wishes evolutionists would write NPOV articles. There is no point in abuse, and no need to show bias. DGG 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the debate between Sidney Fox and Duane Gish, the quotation from Sidney Fox used to establish Gish's scientific credentials is taken badly out of context and needs to be fixed because as it is it completely misrepresents Fox's intellectual orientation. Sidney W. Fox was what is usually called an atheist in the strongest sense of rejecting any notion of deity, supernatural, etc... He completely rejected creationism, intelligent design, and related points of view, although he felt it important to try to engage in dialogue with their proponents, particularl those who employed putatively scientific arguments. Fox was a competent professional protein chemist.
In general Fox's point of view vis-a-vis Gish was clear - he tried to engage in civil debate with Gish on the merits of the claims presented, and he agreed with Gish about very few of the claims Gish made. Fox was also clear to distinguish between scientific credentials and success in doing science.
The unsourced quotation of Fox is an incorrect paraphrase of a passage from page 46 of Fox's book `The Emergence of Life' published by Basic Books in 1988. A complete citation is:
The Emergence of Life. Darwinian Evolution from the Inside. Sidney W. Fox Basic Books, New York. ix + 208p. ISBN: 0-465-01925-0. 1988.
This book was reviewed by Stanley N. Salthe in The Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 343-344.
Fox worked throughout his life to counter the claims made by all who propose what he called `divine action' as a mechanism for observed properties of organisms or chemical systems. While he tried to show his intellectual adversaries respect (perhaps they would not all agree with this), he also would be offended to see his words used to establish Gish as an authority, because he most definitely did not consider Gish an authority. To put it another way. In the book cited above Fox presented Gish's scientific credentials in order to establish why he should be taken seriously as an authority, and to emphasize the importance of debunking the claims that Gish made. The full quotation is
`Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds between amino acids and proteins in size. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeleley. He has been a coauthor of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists.
Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.'
On the next page he wrote 'A focus on this group's criticism of prebiotic proteins shows in tandem three especially false statements ...'
In order to properly parse everything Fox wrote it is necessary to understand Fox's own intellectual pecadillos, something for which this is not an appropriate forum. However, whatever the scientific merits of Fox's arguments or Gish's arguments, it is wrong in spirit to cite Fox's words as testimony in support of Gish as a scientist. To say that someone has scientific credentials is not to say that that someone is a scientist, and Fox certainly meant to make such a distinction. (an unsigned comment by User:Royalturkey at 09:34, 7 October 2006)
Fox's letter entitled `Creationism, the Random Hypothesis, and Experiments' and appearing in Science. New Series, Vol. 213, No. 4505 (Jul., 1981), p. 290, which specifically mentions Gish's work, will, if carefully read, reinforce the argument presented in the previous paragraphs.
Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates. Even a evolutionary scientists admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationist tend to win" the creation/evolution debates. [3] [4] Also, Dr. Henry Morris reported that Duane Gish, who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” [5] ken 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I see no reason why the information necessarily needs to be deleted, though if you wanted to tag it for one violation or another, you probably wouldn't have much trouble. Regardless, I've put the section back, as the reason you gave for blanking it didn't hold- trivia sections in articles aren't uncommon. I appreciate the input- I just don't want the removal of "Trivia" sections on the basis that "trivia" doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia to become a common practice. Those sections can be interesting, informative and useful to researchers. Don't want to set a bad precedent, but feel free to pursue the same end via different means. Moralis 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoever inserted the part about Gish promoting the "false assertion" regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics really needs to check their POV at the door. You may think it's false, but Gish and others do not. I have removed the word "false" and left the word "assertion." Yeshuamyking7 21 June 2007
<undent>To do so without reliable sources would be original research, though we can report other people doing the same. WLU 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who decided it necessary to reinsert the word "false", but I've removed it again. We can keep doing this ad infinitum. The word is POV. Yeshuamyking7 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Abiogenesis and information theory are both dealt with at the talk origins archive, abiogenesis and information. Briefly, abiogenesis is separate from evolution and natural selection/mutations and information is a bit of a word game, depending on your definition of information. You may want to review the entire list before suggesting further changes, as it is a pretty standard reference. Also note that wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and editors should assume good faith rather than dropping subtle or overt verbal jabs at other editors.
The 'usual scientists' statement has been removed in the article I'm looking at, and Gorman is now only in the trivia section. I'll agree that the Gorman section is a bit off. WLU 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It seems to me that a more detailed explanation of the argument directly from Dr. Gish will be useful, and with proper references can help to clarify the article. However, please note that the following sections of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy apply directly to this article; NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and require that Gish's views be presented in the context of the mainstream scientific consensus. .. dave souza, talk 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Baegis - If you'll notice, I didn't use the word "correct." I used the phrase "worthy of reference," in other words, relevant. I have and will acknowledge that in an article about Dr. Gish, Gish's own views would be best to cite. Unfortunately I still haven't found an online example of his argument against evolution as it pertains to the second law. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but it may take some digging. I should hope to think the article will be enlightening, rather than "amusing." That seems to imply that you will be going into the topic with a pre-conceived notion that anything Gish writes will only be good for a laugh. That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.
On that note, I understand the notion of not giving undue weight to a theoretical framework not shared by the majority of scientists. Would it not be more NPOV to state "propagates the assertion ... This assertion is widely held to be false by the scientific community because ...[fill in the blank, cite Talk.Origins]. Dr. Gish argues [fill in the blank, with citation]."
In the page on neutrality, I found the following: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such.'"
From this instruction, it seems valid to write the article in the way I've described above, rather than the way it is currently formulated. Thoughts, anyone? Yeshuamyking7 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not questioning your intelligence. I am questioning your ability to make a clear separation between your beliefs and being able to effectively contribute to this article. I wish you would stick to a particular point on this talk page and not meander around believing I have somehow wronged you. I will restate what I have done several times already. Find the source, provide it, and then we will talk. If you want to argue both sides deserve an account, you can't use your OR to argue that point because it just won't work. Gish's claim about the 2nd Law is no different than every other creationists. If you want to push for the account of his arguments, it would be grossly unfair to Mr. Gish if we decided to only include this particular one.
So, it boils down to X things: 1) Find the source or this conversation has only been an exercise in futility. 2) Why only this argument for inclusion? 3) Can you distance yourself from your personal beliefs on the article and edit objectively please? Baegis 07:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Any interest in or objection to adding the "Gish fallacy" to this article as trivia?
It's the notion most strongly associated with Gish that since computer simulations of evolution are programs created by an intelligent designer (the programmer), then organisms in the real world have been created by an Intelligent Designer as well.
It is possible that Gish has given up on this one since it's so easily deflated: by the same reasoning, a computer simulation of a hurricane would mean that hurricanes are Intelligently Designed (and equivalently unexplainable by science), or a simulation of planetary orbits means that orbits are maintained by Intelligent Design as well (along the lines of the old idea that angels push them along in their paths).
Although he is commonly described as using this argument, I have had some problems finding an exact citation of him on the matter. Anyone have a source on that? MrG 4.225.213.82 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I was impressed when I got my first letter from Gish with all those doctorates and such on the ICR letter heading. Then I found out that you too could become a doctor if you paid the ICR some money. They sold doctorates. This became increasingly obvious as I debated with Gish and others, from their ignorance of all fields of science. After losing so many debates with me, Gish had someone write me that he was at death's door and it worked; I believed and stopped debating with him. It did not matter as I was obviously wasting my time with them since they had no answers. SBQ 14:17 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the 2nd law paragraph:
I've found an online version of Gish's arguments regarding the second law of thermodynamics. It's found here: http://www.icr.org/article/2822/ . In the article, Dr. Gish specifically addresses the law as it relates to the formation of the universe, and then how it relates to abiogenesis and the Miller experiment.
I would like to include this article in the reference section. The problem is that in this article, Gish does not specifically reference natural selection and its connection with the second law, as I'm assuming he does in the article already referenced. As this article already referenced is not online, and therefore not as readily accessed as is Talk.Origins by those who might be curious, I think it would be helpful to have an online article. Ergo, it seems appropriate if a reference is to be made to that article, to make separate references to his argument as it pertains to natural selection and his argument as it pertains to abiogenesis.
I would propose the following change to the wording:
"Gish also propagates the claim that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.[11] Gish further argues that the origin of life through abiogenesis violates the second law. [12 {citation of new article}] The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claims are false.[13]"
Would anyone object to this change?
As a separate issue, now that we have a reference, would anyone object to a simple explanation of what the arguments are on both sides? Yeshuamyking7 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>A synthesis on the talk page is 'allowed' as in you won't get blocked for putting it up for discussion, but it can never move to the main page. And myself and Baegis agree that it would be a synth to put together the 2nd law, abiogenesis and evolution based on the article. I'd say ask for a RFC if you don't believe us, or bring it up on the WP:OR talk page. If you retitled the section to discuss the plentitude of his faulty assumptions, then you could cite this article, but not regards the 2nd law and evolution. We're not saying they can't go on the page, you'll just have to re-work the page to include a section, perhaps entitled 'False beliefs propogated by Gish' - I think that would be OK, but I'd suggest writing it up on a sub-page first for a couple people to review. We don't draw conclusions incidentally, we present facts. Drawing conclusions is OR.
On 'my' wikipedia, a scientists's erroneous views on the Steady State would appear on the Steady State page, with a line saying 'X scientists believes Y. The consensus is against him.[1][2][3]' On the scientists page, you would say 'X is a supporter of the steady state hypothesis, which is not believed by most scientists.[1][2][3]' But it all depends on the notability and relevance of the information. I wouldn't single out Gish on the 2nd law page unless it's pretty small and light on references, though I might reference creationists in general. Have another read of WP:OR and you might better see why myself and Baegis are objecting to the info. Eventually if we keep disagreeing, WP:CONSENSUS will rear it's ugly head, then we get into blocking territory. Creationism-related pages are notorious for contributors who push and push and push to the point of pointless trolling, then get blocked. Your suggestions to date are reasonable ones, but circling on the talk page without moving to the next stage of consensus (at this point a RFC) bodes grimly for ye. Course most creationism-supporters don't gun for making a major creationist figurehead look like a douchebag, which is why we're being patient methinks. WLU 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the debates section requires a good looking at by both sides - Gish doesn't look good and neither do his opponents, and it looks like a weaselly-way of hitting both. WLU 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
About three quarters of this article is either direct or backhanded criticism. That strikes me as a bit excessive given the topic. Most of the criticism looks to me coming from skeptic websites-especially talkorigins which sure looks like it posts a lot of self-published materials. I think unless the criticism is found to be much more generally widespread, outside the skeptic "clique", there is far too much weight given to critical claims in this article. In any event, if these criticisms are launched from other sources as well, they should be referenced. Talkorigins is a great online resource, but it should not be given this much weight as may be defensible coming from a survey of more neutral sources. Professor marginalia 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I'm having a go at editing the article, hopefully when I'm done it'll be a bit more neutral. WLU 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's go back and start over. Beginning with this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article does not represent all significant viewpoints. It doesn't represent opinions of his followers, or a mainstream view of him, and concentrates very heavily on the opinions of a handful of his skeptic leaning opponents. It gives disproportionate prominence to those views and almost no attention to other views. These problems can be remedied to large degree by broadening the sources used beyond the skeptic and talk origin circuit. Neither of those sorts of sources represent all points of view sufficiently. Professor marginalia 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, WLU, for tackling the NPOV issues raised. Before things get too far along, though, I wanted to ask about Richard Trott, a source mentioned 7 times in the article. Who is he? Has he ever been published anywhere besides his college student newspaper? All of his claims stem his opinions from a single speaking engagement of Gish's hosted at Rutgers. It makes good points, but it's a bit of a rant, isn't it? Trott is used as a source here not only of his opinions about Gish, but also as a source of fact claims about science, and I question what his credentials are in this area. One of the examples chosen here is particularly weak--about the Neanderthal issue. I'm not sure that Gish would disagree that Neanderthals had brow ridges, etc. Gish is quoted as saying Neanderthals are "homo sapiens", and of course they were widely considered so by many scientists. It wasn't until maybe roughly 10 years or thereabouts after Gish's appearance in 1994, that Neanderthal scientists firmed up more to one side that it was a separate species rather than subspecies (it continues to be widely called homo sapiens neanderthalensis). I guess I'm asking, what are his credentials for sourcing fact claims about science. And does this one person's opinion from one Gish presentation warrant 7 mentions in this article? Professor marginalia 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm done the re-write, the only section I couldn't integrate was the following on googlewackiness. It's kinda irrelevant anyway, but perhaps can be salvaged:
Duane Gish is mentioned in the best selling non-fiction book Dave Gorman’s Googlewhack Adventure by the British comedian Dave Gorman. In the book, Gorman had been challenged to find 10 googlewhacks in a row. This journey led him to the googlewhack "Dripstone Ingles," AKA Dr. Gish. However, after Gorman met him, Gish could not comprehend the concept of a googlewhack and that chain ended with Gish:
"Imagine trying to telephone your grandmother, and over the telephone explain to your grandmother how to set the video recorder if you knew that she didn't have a video recorder, but she did have a cake."
Coincidentally, Gorman met another Googlewhack, "Hydroids Souvlaki," AKA Dr. M. Dale Stokes, who is a prominent and vocal critic of Dr. Gish. Stokes had even written a paper which debunked a pamphlet which Gish had given Gorman when they met.
WLU 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I'm not asking that his claims be presented as true, which would clearly be POV. The reverse, presenting them as false, is by definition POV. Calling them "Claims made by Gish" or something to that effect is not the same as saying they're true, which is what you seem to be implying above. They are claims. That is not in dispute. Whether or not they are true is a matter of opinion, regardless of whether one can present evidence to back said opinion up. One side has a framework and evidence; the other side has a framework and evidence. Different people will come down on different sides. It doesn't seem responsible for us, as encyclopedia writers, to come down on one or the other. This is simply a rehashing of the erroneous/false debate we've had regarding the second law. Saying the vast majority of scientists reject the claims is NPOV and factual. What you've done is come down on the issue yourself by inserting "erroneous" into the title. That doesn't seem appropriate. Yeshuamyking7 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I agree with Robert Stevens, this portrays the scientific reason for disputing the claims whereas leaving it out means no reason for the claims being disputed. There are reasons, Gish's claims do not jive with the evidence. You have to read the text and come to your own conclusion, which is less helpful for an opening line. Please leave it as is. Gish's claims, as far as (wikipedia's definition of) the most reliable sources that can be found on the subject, are incorrect. Yeshuamking7 - though you do an admirable job of navigating between your point of view (I'm assuming creationist or leaning towards that) and everyone else's, creationism in general is at a disadvantage on wikipedia because they have no reliably sourced counter-claims. Creationists do not publish in reliable sources, and there is
verifiable evidence that they are wrong on every single point they've raised. Your contributions have been good ones, non-trolling and non-baiting, and Baegis is pushing things more than a little (redacted, Baegis' post above looks fine) but the page should not cover up the fact that creationism is essentially wrong, and should not become an apologist front for it either. I think the current version is admirable, and definitely would not like to have to report a 3RR.
WLU 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Thanks for the weblink. You're probably aware, but you might get some objections to using it as a source. Agreed BTW, saying YEC and ID are the same thing is like saying botany and bacterial genetics are the same thing - some overall agreements in paradigm, but essentially two separate ideas. Like many things, we see monolithic and the reality is disagreements and schisms. WLU 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Duane Gish/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
This article is biased in it's overall wording against the subject's point of view.
Example: "Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propragating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics." The author is making his own assertion as to the validity of the debate, not as to the facts of the person's biography, thereby attempting to stealthfully prejudice the reader in the debate rather than discuss the person who is debating. The author states the subject makes a false assertion though the assertion itself is the unresolved subject of the debate itself, making the author biased and unqualified to write an objective article on the subject.
== Evidence == Young earth creationists ought to be marginalised in our society, for clinging to a belief system that is so patently false ... not to mention stupid. Asserting things without facts to support it is simply not the way of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniezarsoff ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 07:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't think the change from: " creation science, a religious movement that seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" to " creation science, a movement that integrates science and religion together. The creation science movement seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" is warranted. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Creation Science which says that: "Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion," clearly shows that editing was done from a creationist point of view. A better revision would be "a movement whose critics say is religiously motivated, and which seeks to challenge the validity of" is more from NPOV.
I cut this out of the article. Preserved here in case someone wants to put it elsewhere:
The greatest criticism of Gish's point of view concerning evolution is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, a point that Charles Darwin clearly made in his book. This was called 'On the origin of species' after all, and not 'On the origin of life.' It is claimed by evolutionary biologists that whether life came about by natural or supernatural origins is of no concern for evolution and the theory of evolution.
The best known contemporary evolutionary biologists, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, refuse to debate people like Gish, by claiming that debate is not how science works. Gould and Dawkins claim that, in science, it is not important who is the best debater, it is important who can come up with a theory which best explains the (observed) facts. Gish agrees with this, however, and claims that the real reason evolutionary biologists won't debate is simply because the theory of evolution ends up looking bad. In debates, Gish always focuses primarily on one central thing, that is, discrediting evolutionary theory.
Publications of Gish and other creation scientists on the subject of creationism have normally been refused by mainstream scientific journals. Creationists claim that the reason for this is that 'mainstream science' is simply not open to alternatives to evolution. For example, Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe emailed some science journals to ask them if they would allow him to refute some articles that were negative towards Intelligent Design in a rebuttal article. He disclosed an email that he received from an editor of a science journal (he withheld the name for privacy issues) who seemed to be open to allowing Dr. Behe a rebuttal space, but later had to deny him on the grounds of a collective board decision. In the first email to Dr. Behe, the editor seemed to agree with what creationists often say, that mainstream science was closed minded to 'non-orthodoxy.' The editor states: 'I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy...' [1].
According to most review boards of the journals, creation articles are rejected because the publications do not contain any science. According to the creationists, they are refused because of the journal's commitment to naturalism, and refuse to consider any alternative. As a result of mainstream journals refusing to give creationists a voice, creationary scientists have established their own peer-reviewed journals that do accept publications about creation science, but these are not accepted as having much scientific value by most of the scientific community.
DJ Clayworth 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In reply to the interpolated comment above, yes I do have objections. My objection is exactly the same one that caused me to take the text out in the first place. It's not about Gish and Creations Science, it's just about Creation Science. People can read about that at creation science. If Gish has views that differ from the main body of creation scientists, or if he made and particular contribution to it, then they should be noted, but otherwise this is just duplicating information. DJ Clayworth 07:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What has happened to the reference to Joyce Arthur's article, a published reference which points out that Gish continues to repeat the same false claims even after being publicly corrected? Her article, "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" was published in Skeptic magazine, vol. 4., no. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93 and is online here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
The philosopher Philip Kitcher made a similar point about creationists in general (though was also referring directly to Gish, whom he debated at the University of Minnesota, which is one of several debates where the consensus is that Gish was soundly walloped) in his book The Advancement of Science (pp. 195-196).
I also point out numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Gish's last major work (Creation Scientists Respond to Their Critics) in my review which appeared in the journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith and which is online here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
There's a wealth of published critiques of Gish's work, but very little of it still seems to be referenced in this article. Chris McGowan's book In the Beginning... is another (criticizing Gish on the fossil record). Lippard 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Some mention should be made of Gish's famous bullfrog comment, in which he claimed that if you look at some proteins, human beings appear to be more closely related to bullfrogs than other primates. When asked to provide his sources (by numerous persons over multiple years), Gish repeatedly failed to do so. It turned out that Gish made his statement based on a misunderstanding of a joking comment he heard at a conference. He has never corrected or admitted his error. This is described in Bob Schadewald's "Scientific Creationism and Error" which may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html (There is also other good Gish-related material in the sidebar on that page)
I compare Schadewald's account to Gish's account here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm
My review of Gish's book answering his critics also is a source of some Gish-related material: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html Lippard 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Brian0918, even the talk origins page you gave says, "Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during much of the debate." It seems like a bad idea to take a debate where the evolutionist used false and/or abusive statements such that even several other evolutionists objected and claim it as a victory. Why don't you use the Saladin debate instead? Anyways, I can't find the Plimer debate's transcript online. It would be nice to use a debate that can actually be referenced and that readers can look at for themselves. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The booklet was (and perhaps still is) being sold by the ICR, and there were plenty of other witnesses to the booklet's being sold there at the event, as well as afterward (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html, already referenced in this Wikipedia article). I haven't researched Gish's specific rebuttal claim about Kitcher's diagram, but Gish's discussions of the reptile-to-mammal fossil record are extremely inaccurate; see, e.g., http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm Lippard 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be a tautology, and to contain another:
"Another is creationists "loading" the audience with supporters, leading to a tendency for the audience to have pre-conceived beliefs in favor of creationism."
I don't find it surprising that creationist supporters have "pre-conceived beliefs" (and what are beliefs if not pre-conceived?) in favour of creationism.
This doesn't seem to "unfairly slant the debate" either, as the audience doesn't determine the quality of arguments on show.
Finally, this leaves only one example of the "number of factors"
Can someone come up with something better on the debates, or perhaps remove the reference?
User:Arbusto, the section you added is as long as the rest of the article put together. Wouldn't it be enough to provide a link to talk.origins and add a sentence briefly outlining his arguments they they refute? Ashmoo 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr Gish appears in Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, when he meets him as he is a Googlewhack. I'm too busy at the moment and am not sure where to insert that information, but it should be there somewhere. — G a ry Kirk | talk! 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the Sydney debate in section 3? Since the account given does seem to have a slight POV, at least it should be sourced and , perhaps, a few adjectives removed, such as "famous". I particularly ask for a source because thre seems to be something missing, as I cannot decipher "Plimer's obtaining of a live electrical current"
Ditto for the other parts of section 3.
"Opponents object" absolutely needs a source: is this being asserted for opinions of Gish in contrast to opinions about other creationists, or are the opponents characterizing his arguments as a representative creationist argument.
In section 2, are the quotations based on a transcript? or a recording? (or, perhaps, memory?)
Are perhaps the opponents, one person in one book? Again, are these arguements being refuted as peculiar to Gish? Is he perhaps the first creationist to have discussed the Neaderthal and Australopitecus material? Or is it a common argument?
And, this is undoubtedly be my fault, but I do not understand the last section. Is it saying that in the book Gorman met Gish? or in real-life? If it is after. not in, the book, a source is needed.
And in the bio, if he is alive, is he still working for the ICR?
I wrrte as one who wishes evolutionists would write NPOV articles. There is no point in abuse, and no need to show bias. DGG 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the debate between Sidney Fox and Duane Gish, the quotation from Sidney Fox used to establish Gish's scientific credentials is taken badly out of context and needs to be fixed because as it is it completely misrepresents Fox's intellectual orientation. Sidney W. Fox was what is usually called an atheist in the strongest sense of rejecting any notion of deity, supernatural, etc... He completely rejected creationism, intelligent design, and related points of view, although he felt it important to try to engage in dialogue with their proponents, particularl those who employed putatively scientific arguments. Fox was a competent professional protein chemist.
In general Fox's point of view vis-a-vis Gish was clear - he tried to engage in civil debate with Gish on the merits of the claims presented, and he agreed with Gish about very few of the claims Gish made. Fox was also clear to distinguish between scientific credentials and success in doing science.
The unsourced quotation of Fox is an incorrect paraphrase of a passage from page 46 of Fox's book `The Emergence of Life' published by Basic Books in 1988. A complete citation is:
The Emergence of Life. Darwinian Evolution from the Inside. Sidney W. Fox Basic Books, New York. ix + 208p. ISBN: 0-465-01925-0. 1988.
This book was reviewed by Stanley N. Salthe in The Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 343-344.
Fox worked throughout his life to counter the claims made by all who propose what he called `divine action' as a mechanism for observed properties of organisms or chemical systems. While he tried to show his intellectual adversaries respect (perhaps they would not all agree with this), he also would be offended to see his words used to establish Gish as an authority, because he most definitely did not consider Gish an authority. To put it another way. In the book cited above Fox presented Gish's scientific credentials in order to establish why he should be taken seriously as an authority, and to emphasize the importance of debunking the claims that Gish made. The full quotation is
`Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds between amino acids and proteins in size. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeleley. He has been a coauthor of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists.
Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.'
On the next page he wrote 'A focus on this group's criticism of prebiotic proteins shows in tandem three especially false statements ...'
In order to properly parse everything Fox wrote it is necessary to understand Fox's own intellectual pecadillos, something for which this is not an appropriate forum. However, whatever the scientific merits of Fox's arguments or Gish's arguments, it is wrong in spirit to cite Fox's words as testimony in support of Gish as a scientist. To say that someone has scientific credentials is not to say that that someone is a scientist, and Fox certainly meant to make such a distinction. (an unsigned comment by User:Royalturkey at 09:34, 7 October 2006)
Fox's letter entitled `Creationism, the Random Hypothesis, and Experiments' and appearing in Science. New Series, Vol. 213, No. 4505 (Jul., 1981), p. 290, which specifically mentions Gish's work, will, if carefully read, reinforce the argument presented in the previous paragraphs.
Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates. Even a evolutionary scientists admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationist tend to win" the creation/evolution debates. [3] [4] Also, Dr. Henry Morris reported that Duane Gish, who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” [5] ken 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I see no reason why the information necessarily needs to be deleted, though if you wanted to tag it for one violation or another, you probably wouldn't have much trouble. Regardless, I've put the section back, as the reason you gave for blanking it didn't hold- trivia sections in articles aren't uncommon. I appreciate the input- I just don't want the removal of "Trivia" sections on the basis that "trivia" doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia to become a common practice. Those sections can be interesting, informative and useful to researchers. Don't want to set a bad precedent, but feel free to pursue the same end via different means. Moralis 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoever inserted the part about Gish promoting the "false assertion" regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics really needs to check their POV at the door. You may think it's false, but Gish and others do not. I have removed the word "false" and left the word "assertion." Yeshuamyking7 21 June 2007
<undent>To do so without reliable sources would be original research, though we can report other people doing the same. WLU 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who decided it necessary to reinsert the word "false", but I've removed it again. We can keep doing this ad infinitum. The word is POV. Yeshuamyking7 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Abiogenesis and information theory are both dealt with at the talk origins archive, abiogenesis and information. Briefly, abiogenesis is separate from evolution and natural selection/mutations and information is a bit of a word game, depending on your definition of information. You may want to review the entire list before suggesting further changes, as it is a pretty standard reference. Also note that wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and editors should assume good faith rather than dropping subtle or overt verbal jabs at other editors.
The 'usual scientists' statement has been removed in the article I'm looking at, and Gorman is now only in the trivia section. I'll agree that the Gorman section is a bit off. WLU 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It seems to me that a more detailed explanation of the argument directly from Dr. Gish will be useful, and with proper references can help to clarify the article. However, please note that the following sections of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy apply directly to this article; NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and require that Gish's views be presented in the context of the mainstream scientific consensus. .. dave souza, talk 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Baegis - If you'll notice, I didn't use the word "correct." I used the phrase "worthy of reference," in other words, relevant. I have and will acknowledge that in an article about Dr. Gish, Gish's own views would be best to cite. Unfortunately I still haven't found an online example of his argument against evolution as it pertains to the second law. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but it may take some digging. I should hope to think the article will be enlightening, rather than "amusing." That seems to imply that you will be going into the topic with a pre-conceived notion that anything Gish writes will only be good for a laugh. That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.
On that note, I understand the notion of not giving undue weight to a theoretical framework not shared by the majority of scientists. Would it not be more NPOV to state "propagates the assertion ... This assertion is widely held to be false by the scientific community because ...[fill in the blank, cite Talk.Origins]. Dr. Gish argues [fill in the blank, with citation]."
In the page on neutrality, I found the following: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such.'"
From this instruction, it seems valid to write the article in the way I've described above, rather than the way it is currently formulated. Thoughts, anyone? Yeshuamyking7 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not questioning your intelligence. I am questioning your ability to make a clear separation between your beliefs and being able to effectively contribute to this article. I wish you would stick to a particular point on this talk page and not meander around believing I have somehow wronged you. I will restate what I have done several times already. Find the source, provide it, and then we will talk. If you want to argue both sides deserve an account, you can't use your OR to argue that point because it just won't work. Gish's claim about the 2nd Law is no different than every other creationists. If you want to push for the account of his arguments, it would be grossly unfair to Mr. Gish if we decided to only include this particular one.
So, it boils down to X things: 1) Find the source or this conversation has only been an exercise in futility. 2) Why only this argument for inclusion? 3) Can you distance yourself from your personal beliefs on the article and edit objectively please? Baegis 07:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Any interest in or objection to adding the "Gish fallacy" to this article as trivia?
It's the notion most strongly associated with Gish that since computer simulations of evolution are programs created by an intelligent designer (the programmer), then organisms in the real world have been created by an Intelligent Designer as well.
It is possible that Gish has given up on this one since it's so easily deflated: by the same reasoning, a computer simulation of a hurricane would mean that hurricanes are Intelligently Designed (and equivalently unexplainable by science), or a simulation of planetary orbits means that orbits are maintained by Intelligent Design as well (along the lines of the old idea that angels push them along in their paths).
Although he is commonly described as using this argument, I have had some problems finding an exact citation of him on the matter. Anyone have a source on that? MrG 4.225.213.82 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I was impressed when I got my first letter from Gish with all those doctorates and such on the ICR letter heading. Then I found out that you too could become a doctor if you paid the ICR some money. They sold doctorates. This became increasingly obvious as I debated with Gish and others, from their ignorance of all fields of science. After losing so many debates with me, Gish had someone write me that he was at death's door and it worked; I believed and stopped debating with him. It did not matter as I was obviously wasting my time with them since they had no answers. SBQ 14:17 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the 2nd law paragraph:
I've found an online version of Gish's arguments regarding the second law of thermodynamics. It's found here: http://www.icr.org/article/2822/ . In the article, Dr. Gish specifically addresses the law as it relates to the formation of the universe, and then how it relates to abiogenesis and the Miller experiment.
I would like to include this article in the reference section. The problem is that in this article, Gish does not specifically reference natural selection and its connection with the second law, as I'm assuming he does in the article already referenced. As this article already referenced is not online, and therefore not as readily accessed as is Talk.Origins by those who might be curious, I think it would be helpful to have an online article. Ergo, it seems appropriate if a reference is to be made to that article, to make separate references to his argument as it pertains to natural selection and his argument as it pertains to abiogenesis.
I would propose the following change to the wording:
"Gish also propagates the claim that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.[11] Gish further argues that the origin of life through abiogenesis violates the second law. [12 {citation of new article}] The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claims are false.[13]"
Would anyone object to this change?
As a separate issue, now that we have a reference, would anyone object to a simple explanation of what the arguments are on both sides? Yeshuamyking7 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>A synthesis on the talk page is 'allowed' as in you won't get blocked for putting it up for discussion, but it can never move to the main page. And myself and Baegis agree that it would be a synth to put together the 2nd law, abiogenesis and evolution based on the article. I'd say ask for a RFC if you don't believe us, or bring it up on the WP:OR talk page. If you retitled the section to discuss the plentitude of his faulty assumptions, then you could cite this article, but not regards the 2nd law and evolution. We're not saying they can't go on the page, you'll just have to re-work the page to include a section, perhaps entitled 'False beliefs propogated by Gish' - I think that would be OK, but I'd suggest writing it up on a sub-page first for a couple people to review. We don't draw conclusions incidentally, we present facts. Drawing conclusions is OR.
On 'my' wikipedia, a scientists's erroneous views on the Steady State would appear on the Steady State page, with a line saying 'X scientists believes Y. The consensus is against him.[1][2][3]' On the scientists page, you would say 'X is a supporter of the steady state hypothesis, which is not believed by most scientists.[1][2][3]' But it all depends on the notability and relevance of the information. I wouldn't single out Gish on the 2nd law page unless it's pretty small and light on references, though I might reference creationists in general. Have another read of WP:OR and you might better see why myself and Baegis are objecting to the info. Eventually if we keep disagreeing, WP:CONSENSUS will rear it's ugly head, then we get into blocking territory. Creationism-related pages are notorious for contributors who push and push and push to the point of pointless trolling, then get blocked. Your suggestions to date are reasonable ones, but circling on the talk page without moving to the next stage of consensus (at this point a RFC) bodes grimly for ye. Course most creationism-supporters don't gun for making a major creationist figurehead look like a douchebag, which is why we're being patient methinks. WLU 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the debates section requires a good looking at by both sides - Gish doesn't look good and neither do his opponents, and it looks like a weaselly-way of hitting both. WLU 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
About three quarters of this article is either direct or backhanded criticism. That strikes me as a bit excessive given the topic. Most of the criticism looks to me coming from skeptic websites-especially talkorigins which sure looks like it posts a lot of self-published materials. I think unless the criticism is found to be much more generally widespread, outside the skeptic "clique", there is far too much weight given to critical claims in this article. In any event, if these criticisms are launched from other sources as well, they should be referenced. Talkorigins is a great online resource, but it should not be given this much weight as may be defensible coming from a survey of more neutral sources. Professor marginalia 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I'm having a go at editing the article, hopefully when I'm done it'll be a bit more neutral. WLU 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's go back and start over. Beginning with this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article does not represent all significant viewpoints. It doesn't represent opinions of his followers, or a mainstream view of him, and concentrates very heavily on the opinions of a handful of his skeptic leaning opponents. It gives disproportionate prominence to those views and almost no attention to other views. These problems can be remedied to large degree by broadening the sources used beyond the skeptic and talk origin circuit. Neither of those sorts of sources represent all points of view sufficiently. Professor marginalia 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, WLU, for tackling the NPOV issues raised. Before things get too far along, though, I wanted to ask about Richard Trott, a source mentioned 7 times in the article. Who is he? Has he ever been published anywhere besides his college student newspaper? All of his claims stem his opinions from a single speaking engagement of Gish's hosted at Rutgers. It makes good points, but it's a bit of a rant, isn't it? Trott is used as a source here not only of his opinions about Gish, but also as a source of fact claims about science, and I question what his credentials are in this area. One of the examples chosen here is particularly weak--about the Neanderthal issue. I'm not sure that Gish would disagree that Neanderthals had brow ridges, etc. Gish is quoted as saying Neanderthals are "homo sapiens", and of course they were widely considered so by many scientists. It wasn't until maybe roughly 10 years or thereabouts after Gish's appearance in 1994, that Neanderthal scientists firmed up more to one side that it was a separate species rather than subspecies (it continues to be widely called homo sapiens neanderthalensis). I guess I'm asking, what are his credentials for sourcing fact claims about science. And does this one person's opinion from one Gish presentation warrant 7 mentions in this article? Professor marginalia 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm done the re-write, the only section I couldn't integrate was the following on googlewackiness. It's kinda irrelevant anyway, but perhaps can be salvaged:
Duane Gish is mentioned in the best selling non-fiction book Dave Gorman’s Googlewhack Adventure by the British comedian Dave Gorman. In the book, Gorman had been challenged to find 10 googlewhacks in a row. This journey led him to the googlewhack "Dripstone Ingles," AKA Dr. Gish. However, after Gorman met him, Gish could not comprehend the concept of a googlewhack and that chain ended with Gish:
"Imagine trying to telephone your grandmother, and over the telephone explain to your grandmother how to set the video recorder if you knew that she didn't have a video recorder, but she did have a cake."
Coincidentally, Gorman met another Googlewhack, "Hydroids Souvlaki," AKA Dr. M. Dale Stokes, who is a prominent and vocal critic of Dr. Gish. Stokes had even written a paper which debunked a pamphlet which Gish had given Gorman when they met.
WLU 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I'm not asking that his claims be presented as true, which would clearly be POV. The reverse, presenting them as false, is by definition POV. Calling them "Claims made by Gish" or something to that effect is not the same as saying they're true, which is what you seem to be implying above. They are claims. That is not in dispute. Whether or not they are true is a matter of opinion, regardless of whether one can present evidence to back said opinion up. One side has a framework and evidence; the other side has a framework and evidence. Different people will come down on different sides. It doesn't seem responsible for us, as encyclopedia writers, to come down on one or the other. This is simply a rehashing of the erroneous/false debate we've had regarding the second law. Saying the vast majority of scientists reject the claims is NPOV and factual. What you've done is come down on the issue yourself by inserting "erroneous" into the title. That doesn't seem appropriate. Yeshuamyking7 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I agree with Robert Stevens, this portrays the scientific reason for disputing the claims whereas leaving it out means no reason for the claims being disputed. There are reasons, Gish's claims do not jive with the evidence. You have to read the text and come to your own conclusion, which is less helpful for an opening line. Please leave it as is. Gish's claims, as far as (wikipedia's definition of) the most reliable sources that can be found on the subject, are incorrect. Yeshuamking7 - though you do an admirable job of navigating between your point of view (I'm assuming creationist or leaning towards that) and everyone else's, creationism in general is at a disadvantage on wikipedia because they have no reliably sourced counter-claims. Creationists do not publish in reliable sources, and there is
verifiable evidence that they are wrong on every single point they've raised. Your contributions have been good ones, non-trolling and non-baiting, and Baegis is pushing things more than a little (redacted, Baegis' post above looks fine) but the page should not cover up the fact that creationism is essentially wrong, and should not become an apologist front for it either. I think the current version is admirable, and definitely would not like to have to report a 3RR.
WLU 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Thanks for the weblink. You're probably aware, but you might get some objections to using it as a source. Agreed BTW, saying YEC and ID are the same thing is like saying botany and bacterial genetics are the same thing - some overall agreements in paradigm, but essentially two separate ideas. Like many things, we see monolithic and the reality is disagreements and schisms. WLU 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Duane Gish/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
This article is biased in it's overall wording against the subject's point of view.
Example: "Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propragating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics." The author is making his own assertion as to the validity of the debate, not as to the facts of the person's biography, thereby attempting to stealthfully prejudice the reader in the debate rather than discuss the person who is debating. The author states the subject makes a false assertion though the assertion itself is the unresolved subject of the debate itself, making the author biased and unqualified to write an objective article on the subject.
== Evidence == Young earth creationists ought to be marginalised in our society, for clinging to a belief system that is so patently false ... not to mention stupid. Asserting things without facts to support it is simply not the way of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniezarsoff ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 07:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)