![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
This page says 50, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District says 60! Somebody please fix. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iforget2020 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the book called this? (unsigned comment by User:Starwed 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
The paragraph beginning with, "The title Of Pandas and People is a reference to a scientific controversy about the giant panda" does not go on to sufficiently explain the controversy mentioned. Something about a thumb without even an immediate link to more info. Also, the sentence that follows makes use of the words "in fact" preceding a reference to evolutionary theories, again without explanation. Perhaps a neutral voice and ample explanation would be more inviting to those without developed opinions on the topics at hand. And more informative to boot! --bobby
I removed a dispute tag that had no substantiation on this talk page. If someone has a real dispute, they should feel free to reinstate the tag and open discussion here. JHCC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the use of the phrase "watered down" in reference to the Kansas incident. I replaced it with something like "modified curriculum with regard to evolutionary theory".
It seems like the External Links section is a bit biased towards one side. Perhaps somebody could add more pro-ID links and/or remove some anti-ID links for the sake of balance? Fightindaman 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The external links section is really biased. For one thing, it does not label the opposing group as Pro-Evolution/Darwinism, but "Pro Science". They have already labeled one 'Science' on the spot. There are quite a few ID sites conspicuously absent from the pro-Intelligent design links. 165.123.133.216 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Rebekah
I'm kind of disappointed. I expected more from the Overview section. I'm writing a paper contrasting 19th century objections to Darwinism with modern-day objections, but I can't even figure out what the main objections in Pandas are. Perhaps someone here would sacrifice (and I do mean sacrifice) their time and read the book? Report back on what it says? Thanks! -- aciel 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read the book? Then you can report on what it says. Probably not a bad idea, considering you are writing a paper on it (or do you mean a high-school paper?). Nina 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why were there only negative reviews about the book? There were any positive ones? Was the writer of this article bias? Celsopdacunha ( talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone wrote,
Pseudoscience or non-science? I know it's something that isn't science dressed up as science, but doesn't pseudoscience already have a definition that is inconsistent with what Intelligent Design is? From what I remember, pseudoscience is somewhat scientific, but inappropriately done; Pandas and People is NOT scientific.
Read the pseudoscience article to better understand it. Mr Christopher 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1.Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
The above is the Wiktionary definition. Intelligent Design is renamed Creation Science q.v. with some subtrefuge. I submit that Intelligent Design = Creation Science = pseudoscience —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tonygumbrell (
talk •
contribs)
17:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
'Of pandas and people' may not place it's emphasis on employing the scientific method, but this does not imply that it is illogical. Perhaps 'pandas' does not address evolution on the basis of the scientific method, but on the basis of logic and what is rational. To a rational observer, a theory can be disproved equally well by good reasoning as by employment of the scientific method. Thus the terms 'pseudo-science' or 'non science' are not justifiable to use on this book, simply because they do not apply. It is also questionable to label 'pandas' as pseudoscience/nonscientific - both words having strongly negative connotations - without addressing any of it's specific arguments - Misternopps
Misternopps (
talk)
22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately the case for articles on wikipedia that deal with this topic in any way is that they are biased and inaccurate. Censorship and lies have served false ideals and ideas well in the past, so they are used now. -- Tembew ( talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the cover picture.
Misternopps (
talk)
22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Overview begins with:
First- can somebody give a specific citation (page and edition number) for these quotations.
Real question- why are there bracketed words here? I've never read the book (don't know much about it) but I assume that the "[can be located]" stands for something like "is" in the original, while the "[ID proponents]" has been inserted and has no equivalent in the original. If I'm right about those (and if I'm not then I have no issue with the sentences as written), then it seems that these brackets been inserted to make the text sound less POV. It seems to me that we should leave the maximum possible POV in the text quotations, since that's the only reason anybody cares about this book. I'd like to see the original text there, unless there's a real reason not to. Staecker 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you catch this on NOVA last night? Too funny. It should go in the article of have it's own. Someone is already selling t-shirts that say "I heart cdesign proponentsists" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 ( talk) 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The section: 2006 attempt to declare Pandas the "Banned Book of the Year" is only sourced by a website and a blog. If nobody else mentioned the "attempt" is it really notable? Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I can support the previous "2004 - 2005: Dover, Pennsylvania" or "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover", but the current "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania" is messy. We should use "Dover" to mean the geographic location, or the defendant (Dover School Board) -- not both. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 5 from WP:V (emphasis mine):
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control
Seed Magazine (which can be put in the place of "newspapers" above) may have set up ScienceBlogs, but they exert NO editorial control on them (a fact that is stated in the ScienceBlogs article). Because of this, any and all ScienceBlogs cannot be used as RS. 67.135.49.177 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am curious how the relationship between Seed (magazine) and Scienceblogs differs from the relationship envisaged under WP:V footnote 5, specifically the section "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I would also point out that Scienceblogs tend to be more knowledgeable (and thus more reliable) sources for science news (and analysis thereof) than the mainstream press, who often allow reporters without a strong science background to cover this beat. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In saying that intelligent design is a pseudoscience, the statement is made (in the opening paragraph) that it cannot be "verified through repeatable experiments," which is a classic definition of what a science is. I fail to see how many things that are deemed "scientific" can be justified as such then. Macro-evolution is one such thing that resists being "verified through repeatable experiments," is it not? Yet does this not fall into the realm of a scientific theory? It seems that using verification by repeatable experiments as the acid test, would throw out many other areas we loosely categorize as scientific (e.g. anthropology, paleontology, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Thank you for that ignorant rant spouting tired and fallacious creationist dogma." This is an interesting way to provide a civilized response, and I think it presents a strawman. Is intelligent design synonymous with creationism? I think not. Creationism is centered around a specific God, who personally created everything. It is closely associated with young earth beliefs (though not always). ID simply looks to provide a theory as to how things in nature, from an observable standpoint, appear to have a design. (Evolution has never adequately explained how life comes to be. Even many proponents of neo-Darwinism concede that there appears to be design, before they then try to explain it away.) So I think equalizing ID with creationism is a big strawman. Why shouldn't ID be considered as a bonafide theory as to how life emerges? People can then decide for themselves who the designer might be. It seems that many in the neo-Darwinian arena have the notion so set in their minds, that they instantly attack any thought to explain otherwise. This is while struggling to make so many things fit into places they don't appear to go. I know that the Panda & People book is supposed to have had all the many references to creationism changed to intelligent design. While this may be true, does it mean this theory can’t evolve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 ( talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
|
All parties above should consider that this page is for discussions aimed at improving the wikipedia article Of Pandas and People. Other discussions can be taken elsewhere. Staecker ( talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the version graph in the article be updated to include the publishing of The Design of Life? According to the publisher 1/3 of The Design Of Life is straight from Pandas and People and 2/3rds is "new" material. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it unimportant for the book's first paragraph to debunk ID as a scientific theory. The first paragraph still contained a reference to Intelligent Design article which already has discussion about its legality as a scientific theory. The article about the book should focus on the books content, merits and criticism on content. 86.50.9.167 ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
However, defense expert William Dembski made prominent mention of his role as Academic Editor of FTE in his expert report, and was involved in the case as of the time that the roster of defense experts was released, January or February of 2005 IIRC. This was a point noted by Judge Jones in the FTE motion to intervene, that Buell claimed not to have known what has going on, yet Dembski was officially an officer in his organization. FTE was already involved in the case in the person of its academic editor, Dembski. FTE sought to become a defendant later once Dembski's incautious use of his experience in writing "The Design of Life" opened FTE up to production of the manuscript for review. -- Wesley R. Elsberry ( talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor is dispute-templating this file (again). Editors may wish to weigh in. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to IP 24.7.107.240 for the correction from Thaxton to Kenyon for the afadavit. However, the claim that Thaxton got the phrase "intelligent design" from "1980s discussions of the face on Mars" is not supported from the cited reference, so I've removed it. It's plausible, as the 1986 publication Planetary mysteries, Issue 38, By Richard Grossinger, quotes Richard C. Hoagland as saying "Because if those things are not natural, if in fact they are the product of intelligent design, this is obviously the most important discovery anyone has ever made." [2] Not that he's a NASA scientist, and of course we need a source making the explicit connection between that and Thaxton's moment of inspiration.
Something else to consider is that Nancy Pearcey is apparently the author of the Overview chapter of Pandas, at least in the 2003 edition, and "more-or-less republished the entire Overview chapter in three 1989 issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter. [3] Probably worth a mention. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Update: seems she wrote the first edition overview, and had some interesting things to say about it when questioned. [4] . dave souza, talk 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
How can the first and second editions be credited to two authors and the third edition be credited to two different authors under a different title? While it's common for many authors to contribute to a book (or even a paper) and only the first couple to be credited, changing this between editions is something I'm not familiar with. There's even variants for its library entries. Is it a case of the two later authors conducting major revision, or what is usually called a revised edition? MartinSFSA ( talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The judge, in fact, said both. "...were deliberately and systematically replaced..." and "...the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design”..." so which idea are we trying to convey? That the change was done one-by-one or that the change was done to the entire work? The syntax seems to suggest that we are trying to convey that every occurrence in the entire book was changed, not that it was done deliberately and meticulously one at a time. The judge was talking about two different points - what are we talking about? (sorry, but the confusion and misuse of these two words is a pet peeve of mine) Padillah ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is true that Louisville, OH tried to push creationism in 1987 and was threatened by the ACLU, however saying that creationism was openly taught in district schools was dubious at best. I lived in Louisville from birth through 1995, attended Louisville Elementary, Middle and High Schools. I was never taught creationism in any of my classes; I did have some very religious teachers who had no problem sharing opinions, but it was never taught or tested in my experience.
Either the reference was quoting opinion, or was extrapolating a few experiences to an entire district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.219.218 ( talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be unbalanced in that it completely lacks negative/critical reception material. DP76764 ( Talk) 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I added the English-language books category. Someone removed it. That was not the correct thing for anyone who thinks the category is "useless" to have done. If a category is useless, nominate it for deletion. Do not remove it at random from articles. (NB, I don't agree that the category is "useless" - there's no reason why people shouldn't find it helpful to know what books have been published in the English language). FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I think use of the word "espouse" in the opening paragraph isn't really appropriate. The word carries connotations that make me wonder if there's a certain point of view or bias in the tone of the article. Perhaps the word "expound" would be a little more appropriate. I see that MrBill3 reverted my edit. I'm curious as to the rationale for the reversion. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that I mistakenly attributed the reversion of my edit to MrBill3. I sincerely apologize for that, just an honest mistake. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course the book supports the theory of intelligent design. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. But then it is also true that biology textbooks (such as the one I teach from at my own high school) promote the theory of evolution. I contend that the word "espouse" carries with it an unnecessary tone and creates bias in an article that already suffers from a pretty heavy-handed and overwhelmingly negative evaluation. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok. But I'm not talking about biology textbooks. I'm talking about a Wikipedia article. I'm talking about tone and bias in an encyclopedia article. These are two different things. Also, note that I have not resorted to name-calling incivility. As for being an apologist, nothing could be further from the truth. I would never claim to be an expert, but I have an undergraduate degree in biology. I teach biology in a public high school. I teach evolution. I have a natural interest in the subject. Mrbates76 ( talk) 14:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I removed the word "pseudoscientific," describing the textbook's contents, from the lead paragraph. It was, within minutes, reverted by ChrisO. I do not believe in intelligent design per se, but I do find this wording quite biased. It is already stated that the book is controversial, and said controversy is presented fairly in the rest of the article, presenting both viewpoints, so why shut down the debate with one word in the lead? If the article was about Phrenology then fine, call it pseudoscience, but intelligent design is still being actively debated, and as I said before, I don't want to shut down said debate with a single word. I understand that I'm not going to get much support for arguing with an admin, and I'm not going to start an edit war, but I do think there needs to be a discussion about this. TorontoLRT ( talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's possible these guys are paid to keep these articles biased. It's strange how quickly they revert changes to include the biased content. That or they are really emotional about this and have no life -- Tembew ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Repeated insertion of content not congruent with consensus or WP:ASSERT have been reverted several times. Redoing such edits without consensus is edit warring and against a number of policies and guidelines. Discussion to consensus is needed for changes. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
With regard to Dave Souza's comment: I don't personally conflate the concepts of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. I'm a high school biology teacher so, at least in an undergraduate sense I have some formal training in the subject.
I am intensely interested in the theory of panspermia and also the concept that terrestrial life may possibly have evolved from purposefully designed nucleic molecules or even precursors to such molecules.
The concept of design is not wholly owned by religious adherents. There are serious and highly trained scientists within the larger community who are open to the idea that terrestrial life as we see and quantify it today might have been designed by a life form unrelated to ourselves.
My point is, it seems reasonable to admit space for a broader discussion whilst agreeing that the prevailing view is one held by the majority within the greater community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbates76 ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2014
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
This page says 50, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District says 60! Somebody please fix. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iforget2020 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the book called this? (unsigned comment by User:Starwed 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
The paragraph beginning with, "The title Of Pandas and People is a reference to a scientific controversy about the giant panda" does not go on to sufficiently explain the controversy mentioned. Something about a thumb without even an immediate link to more info. Also, the sentence that follows makes use of the words "in fact" preceding a reference to evolutionary theories, again without explanation. Perhaps a neutral voice and ample explanation would be more inviting to those without developed opinions on the topics at hand. And more informative to boot! --bobby
I removed a dispute tag that had no substantiation on this talk page. If someone has a real dispute, they should feel free to reinstate the tag and open discussion here. JHCC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the use of the phrase "watered down" in reference to the Kansas incident. I replaced it with something like "modified curriculum with regard to evolutionary theory".
It seems like the External Links section is a bit biased towards one side. Perhaps somebody could add more pro-ID links and/or remove some anti-ID links for the sake of balance? Fightindaman 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The external links section is really biased. For one thing, it does not label the opposing group as Pro-Evolution/Darwinism, but "Pro Science". They have already labeled one 'Science' on the spot. There are quite a few ID sites conspicuously absent from the pro-Intelligent design links. 165.123.133.216 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Rebekah
I'm kind of disappointed. I expected more from the Overview section. I'm writing a paper contrasting 19th century objections to Darwinism with modern-day objections, but I can't even figure out what the main objections in Pandas are. Perhaps someone here would sacrifice (and I do mean sacrifice) their time and read the book? Report back on what it says? Thanks! -- aciel 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read the book? Then you can report on what it says. Probably not a bad idea, considering you are writing a paper on it (or do you mean a high-school paper?). Nina 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why were there only negative reviews about the book? There were any positive ones? Was the writer of this article bias? Celsopdacunha ( talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone wrote,
Pseudoscience or non-science? I know it's something that isn't science dressed up as science, but doesn't pseudoscience already have a definition that is inconsistent with what Intelligent Design is? From what I remember, pseudoscience is somewhat scientific, but inappropriately done; Pandas and People is NOT scientific.
Read the pseudoscience article to better understand it. Mr Christopher 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1.Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
The above is the Wiktionary definition. Intelligent Design is renamed Creation Science q.v. with some subtrefuge. I submit that Intelligent Design = Creation Science = pseudoscience —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tonygumbrell (
talk •
contribs)
17:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
'Of pandas and people' may not place it's emphasis on employing the scientific method, but this does not imply that it is illogical. Perhaps 'pandas' does not address evolution on the basis of the scientific method, but on the basis of logic and what is rational. To a rational observer, a theory can be disproved equally well by good reasoning as by employment of the scientific method. Thus the terms 'pseudo-science' or 'non science' are not justifiable to use on this book, simply because they do not apply. It is also questionable to label 'pandas' as pseudoscience/nonscientific - both words having strongly negative connotations - without addressing any of it's specific arguments - Misternopps
Misternopps (
talk)
22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately the case for articles on wikipedia that deal with this topic in any way is that they are biased and inaccurate. Censorship and lies have served false ideals and ideas well in the past, so they are used now. -- Tembew ( talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the cover picture.
Misternopps (
talk)
22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Overview begins with:
First- can somebody give a specific citation (page and edition number) for these quotations.
Real question- why are there bracketed words here? I've never read the book (don't know much about it) but I assume that the "[can be located]" stands for something like "is" in the original, while the "[ID proponents]" has been inserted and has no equivalent in the original. If I'm right about those (and if I'm not then I have no issue with the sentences as written), then it seems that these brackets been inserted to make the text sound less POV. It seems to me that we should leave the maximum possible POV in the text quotations, since that's the only reason anybody cares about this book. I'd like to see the original text there, unless there's a real reason not to. Staecker 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you catch this on NOVA last night? Too funny. It should go in the article of have it's own. Someone is already selling t-shirts that say "I heart cdesign proponentsists" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 ( talk) 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The section: 2006 attempt to declare Pandas the "Banned Book of the Year" is only sourced by a website and a blog. If nobody else mentioned the "attempt" is it really notable? Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I can support the previous "2004 - 2005: Dover, Pennsylvania" or "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover", but the current "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania" is messy. We should use "Dover" to mean the geographic location, or the defendant (Dover School Board) -- not both. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 5 from WP:V (emphasis mine):
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control
Seed Magazine (which can be put in the place of "newspapers" above) may have set up ScienceBlogs, but they exert NO editorial control on them (a fact that is stated in the ScienceBlogs article). Because of this, any and all ScienceBlogs cannot be used as RS. 67.135.49.177 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am curious how the relationship between Seed (magazine) and Scienceblogs differs from the relationship envisaged under WP:V footnote 5, specifically the section "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I would also point out that Scienceblogs tend to be more knowledgeable (and thus more reliable) sources for science news (and analysis thereof) than the mainstream press, who often allow reporters without a strong science background to cover this beat. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In saying that intelligent design is a pseudoscience, the statement is made (in the opening paragraph) that it cannot be "verified through repeatable experiments," which is a classic definition of what a science is. I fail to see how many things that are deemed "scientific" can be justified as such then. Macro-evolution is one such thing that resists being "verified through repeatable experiments," is it not? Yet does this not fall into the realm of a scientific theory? It seems that using verification by repeatable experiments as the acid test, would throw out many other areas we loosely categorize as scientific (e.g. anthropology, paleontology, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"Thank you for that ignorant rant spouting tired and fallacious creationist dogma." This is an interesting way to provide a civilized response, and I think it presents a strawman. Is intelligent design synonymous with creationism? I think not. Creationism is centered around a specific God, who personally created everything. It is closely associated with young earth beliefs (though not always). ID simply looks to provide a theory as to how things in nature, from an observable standpoint, appear to have a design. (Evolution has never adequately explained how life comes to be. Even many proponents of neo-Darwinism concede that there appears to be design, before they then try to explain it away.) So I think equalizing ID with creationism is a big strawman. Why shouldn't ID be considered as a bonafide theory as to how life emerges? People can then decide for themselves who the designer might be. It seems that many in the neo-Darwinian arena have the notion so set in their minds, that they instantly attack any thought to explain otherwise. This is while struggling to make so many things fit into places they don't appear to go. I know that the Panda & People book is supposed to have had all the many references to creationism changed to intelligent design. While this may be true, does it mean this theory can’t evolve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 ( talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
|
All parties above should consider that this page is for discussions aimed at improving the wikipedia article Of Pandas and People. Other discussions can be taken elsewhere. Staecker ( talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the version graph in the article be updated to include the publishing of The Design of Life? According to the publisher 1/3 of The Design Of Life is straight from Pandas and People and 2/3rds is "new" material. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it unimportant for the book's first paragraph to debunk ID as a scientific theory. The first paragraph still contained a reference to Intelligent Design article which already has discussion about its legality as a scientific theory. The article about the book should focus on the books content, merits and criticism on content. 86.50.9.167 ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
However, defense expert William Dembski made prominent mention of his role as Academic Editor of FTE in his expert report, and was involved in the case as of the time that the roster of defense experts was released, January or February of 2005 IIRC. This was a point noted by Judge Jones in the FTE motion to intervene, that Buell claimed not to have known what has going on, yet Dembski was officially an officer in his organization. FTE was already involved in the case in the person of its academic editor, Dembski. FTE sought to become a defendant later once Dembski's incautious use of his experience in writing "The Design of Life" opened FTE up to production of the manuscript for review. -- Wesley R. Elsberry ( talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor is dispute-templating this file (again). Editors may wish to weigh in. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to IP 24.7.107.240 for the correction from Thaxton to Kenyon for the afadavit. However, the claim that Thaxton got the phrase "intelligent design" from "1980s discussions of the face on Mars" is not supported from the cited reference, so I've removed it. It's plausible, as the 1986 publication Planetary mysteries, Issue 38, By Richard Grossinger, quotes Richard C. Hoagland as saying "Because if those things are not natural, if in fact they are the product of intelligent design, this is obviously the most important discovery anyone has ever made." [2] Not that he's a NASA scientist, and of course we need a source making the explicit connection between that and Thaxton's moment of inspiration.
Something else to consider is that Nancy Pearcey is apparently the author of the Overview chapter of Pandas, at least in the 2003 edition, and "more-or-less republished the entire Overview chapter in three 1989 issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter. [3] Probably worth a mention. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Update: seems she wrote the first edition overview, and had some interesting things to say about it when questioned. [4] . dave souza, talk 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
How can the first and second editions be credited to two authors and the third edition be credited to two different authors under a different title? While it's common for many authors to contribute to a book (or even a paper) and only the first couple to be credited, changing this between editions is something I'm not familiar with. There's even variants for its library entries. Is it a case of the two later authors conducting major revision, or what is usually called a revised edition? MartinSFSA ( talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The judge, in fact, said both. "...were deliberately and systematically replaced..." and "...the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design”..." so which idea are we trying to convey? That the change was done one-by-one or that the change was done to the entire work? The syntax seems to suggest that we are trying to convey that every occurrence in the entire book was changed, not that it was done deliberately and meticulously one at a time. The judge was talking about two different points - what are we talking about? (sorry, but the confusion and misuse of these two words is a pet peeve of mine) Padillah ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is true that Louisville, OH tried to push creationism in 1987 and was threatened by the ACLU, however saying that creationism was openly taught in district schools was dubious at best. I lived in Louisville from birth through 1995, attended Louisville Elementary, Middle and High Schools. I was never taught creationism in any of my classes; I did have some very religious teachers who had no problem sharing opinions, but it was never taught or tested in my experience.
Either the reference was quoting opinion, or was extrapolating a few experiences to an entire district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.219.218 ( talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be unbalanced in that it completely lacks negative/critical reception material. DP76764 ( Talk) 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I added the English-language books category. Someone removed it. That was not the correct thing for anyone who thinks the category is "useless" to have done. If a category is useless, nominate it for deletion. Do not remove it at random from articles. (NB, I don't agree that the category is "useless" - there's no reason why people shouldn't find it helpful to know what books have been published in the English language). FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I think use of the word "espouse" in the opening paragraph isn't really appropriate. The word carries connotations that make me wonder if there's a certain point of view or bias in the tone of the article. Perhaps the word "expound" would be a little more appropriate. I see that MrBill3 reverted my edit. I'm curious as to the rationale for the reversion. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that I mistakenly attributed the reversion of my edit to MrBill3. I sincerely apologize for that, just an honest mistake. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course the book supports the theory of intelligent design. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. But then it is also true that biology textbooks (such as the one I teach from at my own high school) promote the theory of evolution. I contend that the word "espouse" carries with it an unnecessary tone and creates bias in an article that already suffers from a pretty heavy-handed and overwhelmingly negative evaluation. Mrbates76 ( talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok. But I'm not talking about biology textbooks. I'm talking about a Wikipedia article. I'm talking about tone and bias in an encyclopedia article. These are two different things. Also, note that I have not resorted to name-calling incivility. As for being an apologist, nothing could be further from the truth. I would never claim to be an expert, but I have an undergraduate degree in biology. I teach biology in a public high school. I teach evolution. I have a natural interest in the subject. Mrbates76 ( talk) 14:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I removed the word "pseudoscientific," describing the textbook's contents, from the lead paragraph. It was, within minutes, reverted by ChrisO. I do not believe in intelligent design per se, but I do find this wording quite biased. It is already stated that the book is controversial, and said controversy is presented fairly in the rest of the article, presenting both viewpoints, so why shut down the debate with one word in the lead? If the article was about Phrenology then fine, call it pseudoscience, but intelligent design is still being actively debated, and as I said before, I don't want to shut down said debate with a single word. I understand that I'm not going to get much support for arguing with an admin, and I'm not going to start an edit war, but I do think there needs to be a discussion about this. TorontoLRT ( talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's possible these guys are paid to keep these articles biased. It's strange how quickly they revert changes to include the biased content. That or they are really emotional about this and have no life -- Tembew ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Repeated insertion of content not congruent with consensus or WP:ASSERT have been reverted several times. Redoing such edits without consensus is edit warring and against a number of policies and guidelines. Discussion to consensus is needed for changes. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
With regard to Dave Souza's comment: I don't personally conflate the concepts of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. I'm a high school biology teacher so, at least in an undergraduate sense I have some formal training in the subject.
I am intensely interested in the theory of panspermia and also the concept that terrestrial life may possibly have evolved from purposefully designed nucleic molecules or even precursors to such molecules.
The concept of design is not wholly owned by religious adherents. There are serious and highly trained scientists within the larger community who are open to the idea that terrestrial life as we see and quantify it today might have been designed by a life form unrelated to ourselves.
My point is, it seems reasonable to admit space for a broader discussion whilst agreeing that the prevailing view is one held by the majority within the greater community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbates76 ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2014