![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2006–2014. 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 |
Should it be included what political party Ravi Zacharias belongs to? Whether he is conservative Christian? -- WongFeiHung 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Disingenuous? I remember a sermon by a Southern evangelical minister who stated " God is not a Republican". You could have heard a pin drop - not even a breathe was taken for some time. The quietest, most shocked parishioners I have ever seen. Unbelieveably, he is still their minister - I thought he was a goner. Conservative values does not necessarily mean "Republican" and/or conservative Christian, though there can be some overlap.
I still chuckle when I think of the sermon.
There is an obvious error in the introductory information about Ravi. If he was an atheist until he was 21, how was he preaching in his teens?
Ravi Zacharias tells of being converted at the age of 17, not 21, while in a hospital bed.
Added him to those categories
Why is his speaking at the Mormon event in contrast to his editing the Martin book? I'm about to rephrase it to make it more sensible. Also added links to relevant terms. -- ShawnLee 16:39, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)
Did Ravi's version include a Word-Faith criticism section?
WAVY 10 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that an earlier author shows a palpable dislike for this person, Ravi Zacharias. Here are his previous comments, which I will edit,
"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian Preacher who prefers to present himself as a philosopher and apologist.
Zacharias is descended from a long line of people who have made their living telling stories about the empirically unverifiable, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later as Christian preachers. "
I don't believe the comments about him being a preacher but preferring to call himself a philosopher and apologist conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and neither do the comments about Brahmin priests and christian preachers making their lives telling stories about the empirically unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to throw 'digs' at philosophies we don't care for and to categorize their proponents as preachers rather than philosophers.
I'm going to change these paragraphs to read
"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian philosopher, apologist and preacher.
Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later Christian preachers. "
Unless someone can empirically verify that he is NOT a philosopher and apologist, or that somehow the title of preacher supercedes the title of philosopher and apologist which he lists in the 'about the author' section of his books, these edits should be more in line with the NPOV policy. Also the palpable dislike of religion has been removed and replaced with neutral terms. The fact that SOME religious beliefs and events are empirically unverifiable (while many are empirically verifiable) does not belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.168.46 ( talk) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having questionable notability, but given the accomplishments stated (albeit without sources), such as Zacharias' international organization, visiting professorships and honourary degrees from recognized institutions, and a notable speech at the Mormon church, this article seems to be deficient only in citing sources. If the info in this article can be verified from independent sources, I see no reason to question notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.21.11 ( talk) 27 July 2024
I agree, Ravi Zacharias is an extremely notable Christian apologist. There is no reason that this article should be deleted or flagged as unnotable. I think it should be given priority to be expanded and have its sources cited. His website rzim.org has extensive information on his ministry (in existence for almost 30 years), books and speaking. There is also lots around the internet about him. Also, he wrote an autobiography in 2006, God In The Shadows. Someone just needs to sit down and expand this article.
Kristamaranatha (
talk)
02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification of definition. I'm new to wiki editing. I just updated the Works list, added a picture from the press release on Ravi's website, and will be working on this page this week. I know that he has indeed received significant coverage, so I'll be working on getting that info. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this particular press release photo free to use? The website even gives instructions on how to save it (and other pictures from the press release) to your computer.
Kristamaranatha (
talk)
19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been several attempts recently to introduce policy-noncompliant biographical information into this article. To avoid repetition of this problem, here are some of the most relevant policies:
I would suggest that editors familiarise themselves with these policies before attempting to introduce such information. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could editors please stop copying material verbatim out of www.rzim.org. It is a copyright violation, as well as being problematic under WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to get more sources in line with this, however I think Ravi Zacharias Qualifies under these notability criteria.
Creative professionals
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. -He is frequently mentioned by other well-known authors/speakers in his field * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -He has his hand in creating the more recent versions of the popular Christian reference book the Kingdom of the Cults.
Academics
If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable:
* The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. - I added a reference to an endorsement by the C.S. Lewis Institute
* The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. * The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. - His books have purportedly been endorsed by Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Leighton Ford, and Norman Geisler according to well-known atheist web-site Infidels.com
-- Kraftlos ( talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression to date is that Zacharias has generated great interest among his devotees, moderate interest from his fellow evangelical apologists, and very little interest from the wider academic and mainstream communities. As WP:GNP states: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist." I have yet to see any evidence of substantial secondary sources on Zacharias.
P.S.: please insert new threads at the bottom of a talkpage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed these were cited sources, at least please recognize the way I framed this information. I was just trying to get things going, I did not claim this was valid information that could go right over to the page; with the exception of the C.S. Lewis institute which I really should have read more carefully (sorry, it was late). The rest of the info in here I outlined as a strategy for establishing notability, if I believed what I had here constituted solid evidence it would have gone onto the page. This was to say, I or someone else working on this could start there to find a source.
As it appears that you are the one who tagged this page for notability and have been the main one editing this page; what types of information would YOU accept as "substantial"? There are no biographies on the man. Please do not refer me to the guidelines when answering this question, I have already read them.
P.S.: sorry about the placement of the thread. I really had no idea that anyone cared, but I do see that there are guidelines for this that I was not previously aware of. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on rewriting this article to reflect Ravi's notability and academic noteworthiness, it's just taking a bit more time than I thought it would. If you would like one reference to start things off, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson refers to Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time.
I propose removing the notability warning at the top of the article. Any thoughts? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Colson was disbarred for his role in the Watergate scandal, something that happened before his conversion. Since then he has become an upstanding member of society and a contributor to progress in the prison system. I don't think you're justified in saying he is not a reliable source for said reason. You're going to have to provide some sources yourself if you still insist he is unreliable. He's quoted in Christianity Today among other places for the comment about Ravi Zacharias. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect an "independent" source to be from outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echo-chamber. That fellow evangelical Christian & frequent co-author of Zacharias sings his praise is an over-the-top fashion in an evangelical newspaper, all seems much to incestuous to be credible. That the newspaper in question was founded by evangelical Billy Graham, who shared with Colson a close connection to Nixon, makes it seem even more so. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Ravi Zacharias is 'famous' primarily for being a famous evangelical apologist rather than for anything specific he has done. Lists of apologists frequently include him, but rarely say anything about his achievements. It could be that he is simply a minor, but very well-connected, apologist. In which case, he probably does not deserve an article of his own -- as it amounts to JAEA (Just Another Evangelical Apologist), born somewhere, grew up somewhere, educated somewhere, wrote some books, gave some talks (which were generally notable for where and/or when they were given rather than the fact that he gave them).
So my question is: what is he famous for? Has he written a particularly famous book? If so, then what was it, and where are the WP:RS secondary source reviews and discussion of it? Has he originated a novel and prominent form of apologetics or apologetic argument? If so, again, then what was it, and where is the WP:RS secondary source discussion of it? And for that matter, where are the prominent atheists and/or apologists for other Christian viewpoints who disagree with him? Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
References that help establish his notability include:
I think clearly he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HokieRNB ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
However, I've gotten more than a little sick of all this -- work the Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article & I'll accept them as establishing notability. I will however delete anything that is not substantiated by these meagre offerings. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
<unindent>No. You never actually tried and have "obviously" not read WP:NOTE & WP:BIO. You dump yet another compost heap of fourth-tier trivia, which you have not even managed to work into the article, and expect me to be impressed. If the bar is set this abysmally low then I could probably establish notability for a local footbridge. I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys if you can find a dozen more student papers/local rags that mention him, or if he was once a talking-head in some obscure radio discussion. I'm tired of swatting at midges -- and will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias). If Zacharias is "so obviously notable" then why is he [almost] never mentioned, let alone discussed in detail, in first-tier sources? Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [Updated Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ]
Could somebody tell me:
All this serves only to confirm my previous opinion of his being barely notable and famous primarily for being famous. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's how:
How many pieces of the puzzle do you need to understand the picture that Zacharias is notable? HokieRNB ( talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Further on the subject of trivia, the Gold Medallion Book Award was awarded in a total of 22 categories in 1995 (and continued with a similar number of categories until 2005, after which it was reformed down to six categories -- meaning that this award has had hundreds of recipients). The main award is the 'Christian Book of the Year', which Zacharias did not win. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Gold_Medallion_Book_Award, only a handful of articles on recipients bother to mention the Gold Medallion. Trying to establish Zacharias' notability using this sort of trivia is exactly what makes me so skeptical about the subject. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
HokieRNB ( talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job Hokie at editing this bio. Thanks for getting those sources, helping with the case for Ravi's notability, and writing a great summary of his ministry activities. I definitely look forward to expanding this article a bit more and making it great. Thanks Hrafn, B and everyone else for jumping into the discussion and helping make things happen here. Being new to wiki, this was extremely helpful and helped show me how things work around here. Blessings! Kristamaranatha ( talk) 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We have accumulated a lot of great citations on this discussion page. It would be great to incorporate these into the article, and think about creating some subheadings to organize things a bit better. We're off to a great start, so let's keep going. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone nominated this article as a Good article. Great job everyone! Just wanted to neaten things up a bit before it gets reviewed. We really need to fill in the gaps between Ravi's ministry beginning in the 70's until the present time. This decade has been well covered, but everything in between needs to be discussed. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Done Zacharias was one of the keynote speakers at
Urbana 93.
[24] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ἀλήθεια (
talk •
contribs)
15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dave Currie completed his Masters thesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1998 on "The Apologetic Method of Ravi Zacharias: A Critical Appraisal And Evaluation". If someone could get access to this document, it could probably prove valuable in providing more depth of insight into the section on "Thought". Right now it seems kind of weak. HokieRNB ( talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
I see no reason why, with a little more effort, this article shouldn't meet the required criteria.
I'm placing the review on hold for these simple changes to be made.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Relata refero ( talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Although I wasn't explicitly looking for a source, I was looking for some specifics on who in the Evangelical community was critical of the decision, or at the very least a better idea of how many is "many". Is Bud Press, Director of the Christian Research Service considered a reliable source? Does he speak on behalf of "many Evangelicals"? Just checking. HokieRNB ( talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
I recently removed "Philosopher" from the list of Zacharias' occupations for the simple reason that the man is not one. From what I can see (after careful examination) Zacharias has no formal education in the subject, nor has he ever published a substantial work concerning any serious philosophical discipline. With regards to the comment that he deals with existential philosophical questions, I concede that he does, but then, so does Yancey, arguably in equal depth. Zacharias is, at best, a lay-philosopher and an accomplished theologian - no matter how much we appreciate his works (which i most certainly do), describing him otherwise would be lowering a bar that has fallen far enough in recent years. Dewey56 ( talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dewey56 ( talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Philosopher" should be defined. Does not wikipedia define it? If so, use the definition, measure its application to Mr. Zacharias and edit the entry accordingly. If not, ask Wikipedia to clarify the definition. Keep in mind, regarding "unique contributions" that this might be difficult to qualify since I think it was Alfred North Whitehead who said, "All (Western) Philosophy is a footnote to Plato" and, of course, Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Perhaps a better direction would be to cite prominent people who have referred to him as a philosopher. It is a good observation though, that having a philosohpy doesn't necessarily make one a philosopher.
This is not bad (IMO) for it's summary and even though the critique of Mr. Zacharias' critique here is off-base- it should apply to stars (which lose mass and energy) and also exempt them from the second law of thermo- which they are not- the critique obliquely shows us the issue. It is not a good citation because it is a single item more or less plucked out of the blue from all of his works. A (better) summary of his worldview should be in place or else the randomly selected item or two should be deleted, IMO.
A couple of nights back I added a section on Zacharias' criticism of evolution as violating the second law of thermodynamics. I didn't include a rebuttal of this in the article, but i'd like to point out that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (of which the human body - or any living body, for that matter - is not one, due to natural consumption and excretion). Thus evolution does in no way contradict the second law. Surely Zacharias has noticed this,it is such a basic mistake. Am I alone in suspecting foul play? As much as i value his work, I can't help reaching the conclusion that he is being hopelessly disingenuous. Does anyone have anything to say on the matter? I would be glad to have the issue cleared up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dewey56 (
talk •
contribs)
20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Zarachias appears to be a proponent of the creationist bogus argument according to which evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Calling this wrong is not a matter of point of view, it is a simple scientific fact. The earth is not a closed system, all biological processes are powered by the sun. This is not a matter of opinion, therefore any reference to WP:NPOV in this edit is not warranted. Unless of course, we also allow the factuality of gravity to be called a matter of opinion... -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think a relevant point to be made at this stage of the discussion is the tendancy of Wikipedia articles to deride Christian worldviews and opinion with backhanded remarks that are assumed to be authoritative without any substantiation, which, by the way, is exactly the criticism being levied on the Christian worldview. Articles on any other topic are not treated with the same hostility that infects articles addressing Christianity. This article is NOT about the validity of Zacharias' views, but should be a fair, respectful and unopinionated expressing of those views. Lighten up, Wikipedia. You are not the Idea Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.189.31 ( talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there is also a disproportionate amout of criticism of his view on the 2nd Law. In his book, "A Shattered Visage" Mr Zacharias spends 2 pages out of 193 addressing the problem of evolution contradicting the law which irrefutably will result in the eventual heat-death of our universe. It is also primarily used as an arguement regarding first cause, and secondarily an argument against macro-evolution.
There are plenty of articles where readers can learn whats wrong and right about evolution and creation. Just because someone has alternative views on the world that perhaps do not conform to the scientific consensus does not mean that they should not be tolerated. And I agree about the anti-Christian bias. Portillo ( talk) 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Of the persons cited in [31], which was published by the Institute for Creation Research, I can find no individual with strong scientific credentials and broad influence in the sciences who is actually endorsing the view Zacharias expounds. This is not a matter of controversy within the sciences, and efforts to suggest that it is are, in my view, unambiguously incompatible with WP:NPOV. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Absent a clear, reliable example of advocacy of this position in a major peer-reviewed journal, I think it reasonable to note that the subject's view is not shared by people with expertise in thermodynamics. This does have the disadvantage of being an argument ex silentio. The alternative, I suppose, would be to cite the creationist essay previously cited here and observe that none of the supporters cited there are notable scientists, but this seems circuitous for the reader and unkind to the people who happened to be cited there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We're again seeing requests to delete the lack of support from scientists about this opinion on science, which will doubtless be followed by attempts to restore links to supportive views from creationists. To the extent that the subject holds the opinions ascribed to him here, it should be made clear that he has essentially no support for those opinions from experts on the subject. Is there, for example, a single member of an Ivy League physics department who believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics? MarkBernstein ( talk) 07:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not done all my homework on the Ivy League, but below is a list of faculty members of American universities (mostly public) who think evolution does violate the second law of thermodynamics.
(1) Dr. Donald Kobe, professor of Physics at the University of North Texas in Denton. (2) Dr. David Keller, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of New Mexico. (3) Dr. Gordon Mills, professor emeritus of Biochemistry at the University of Texas. (4) Dr. Thomas Saleska, professor of Biology at Concordia University (Wisconsin). (5) Dr. Charles Bell, professor emeritus of Biological Sciences at San Jose State University. (6) Dr. Norman Schmidt, professor of Chemistry at Georgia Southern University. (7) Dr. Fred Skiff, professor of Physics at the University of Iowa. (8) Dr. Robert Smith, professor of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska. (9) Dr. Michael Strauss, associate professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma. (10) Dr. Frank Cheng, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of Idaho. (11) Dr. C. Stephen Murphee, professor of Biology at Belmont University. (12) Dr. Glen Needham, associate professor of Entomology at The Ohio State University. (13) Dr. L. Whit Marks, professor emeritus of Physics at the University of Central Oklahoma. (14) Dr. Wayne Linn, professor emeritus of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (15) Dr. John Roden, associate professor of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (16) Dr. Donald Kangas, professor of Biology at Truman State University. Wpete510 ( talk) 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If
MarkBernstein could cite your source, and change your wording to "contrary to the position of respected scientist, so-and-so, which states ...", then we could avoid an edit war.
Wpete510 (
talk)
21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
An IP poster asks that we define "scientific community" and demonstrate consensus against the subject’s position. The test described above is informal but convincing. The scientific community is not limited to leading US universities, but I think it’s safe to say that members of the Departments of Physics of Ivy League universities are members of the scientific community. None of them -- not one -- believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. The textbooks used in the Statistical Mechanics course in every one of these institutions -- every one -- includes the second law of thermodynamics. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The term "scientific community" will not work so long as there is an extensive list of respected scientists who oppose evolution. Please see http://creation.com/creation-scientists and http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660. Wpete510 ( talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor who initiated or revived an edit war on this topic today has been promptly blocked and admonished. MarkBernstein ( talk) 02:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
One IP editor summarized (one of) the obvious objections to the subject's reasoning on evolution and thermodynamics, which another IP editor deleted as off-topic. The explanation might be useful here as justifying the reservation that the scientific community rejects the argument that the subject proposes. And that's essential to any understanding of the position the subject holds on evolution and science. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
One editor has recently insisted on deleting language pointing out that the subject's interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is not, in fact, shared wildly (or at all) by experts in thermodynamics. For example, not one member of an Ivy League physics department subscribes to Zacharias' critique. This has been extensively discussed on this page, and the compromise language formerly in the article, and which I shall replace, arose from extensive discussion here. That language is:
A list of people within the scientific community that disagrees with your assessment is listed above in the "Thermodynamics" section. In seeking to follow Wikipedia's POV policy, I propose that the wording be changed to "...an opinion dismissed by most members of the scientific community." Wpete510 ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a single member of this list who holds a tenure-track position in a department of physics at any Ivy League university, or at a university of similar standing, anywhere in the world? Are there two? Is there a physics course at any of these institutions that teaches that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution? This is mere axe grinding, seeking to insert a fringe interpretation under the cloak of NPOV. MarkBernstein ( talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
To your questions, yes, several of the names mentioned are tenured professors at prestigious universities. Yes, at least some of them that include the idea that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution (at least Dr. Saleska, Dr. Skiff, and Dr. Marks before he stopped teaching full-time). No, none of the names mentioned currently teach at an Ivy League school. However, there are more than 10 living Ph.D. graduates from Princeton University alone who have espoused their disbelief in evolution including Raymond Mjolsness (Physics), John Cannon (Organic Chemistry), William Purcell (Physical Chemistry), and Richard Mann (Physical Chemistry). Wpete510 ( talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
None of the universities in your list, with the possible exceptions of Iowa and Texas, are top research institutions. That some ex-scientists from Princeton disbelieve evolution is irrelevant; no Princeton physicist disbelieves evolution because oif it's imagined conflict with the 2nd law. Nor do the physicists you allege agree with Zacharias's; at least, no reliable sources have been proposed. MarkBernstein ( talk) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
References
TheGreatIncognito, apparently a single-purpose account or perhaps a sock, has repeatedly removed long-standing consensus language regarding the subject's views of the second law of thermodynamics. This language has been extensively discussed in this page and its archives, and has been retained in various forms for years. Many sound reasons for this brief disclaimer may be adduced, and many have been adduced above, If we must call this into question, let us remember BRT and discuss it here. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy, of course, to document that the subject's position has been rejected by the scientific community since it was popularized by pseudoscientific tracts in the 1960s. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441 , John W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, New York, 1983, pg. 99-116. We could, for example, enumerate every author used in every thermodynamics textbook assigned in Ivy League physics departments. This would not place the subject in a better light, I think, than the simple statement that the author's argument has won no support.
Alternatively, it might be kinder to the subject to remove any reference to his views on evolution. As I understand the subject's body of work, his opinions on evolution are not central. His biographer will eventually need to consider whether this particular stance is simply a blunder or a deliberate misstatement, but perhaps we tactfully should avert our eyes and pass over the matter in silence. MarkBernstein ( talk)
I've file a WP/ANI notice at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ravi_Zacharias . I believe there's an appropriate template for this, but can't seem to locate it; feel free to replace this notice with the correct one if you know how. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Zacharias's views on evolution are not a huge part of his thought. There's a lot of primary sourcing for his idea that evolution fails to explain the existence of human morality, but in secondary discussions of his work this aspect is barely mentioned. Thus, as I said above, I'm indifferent as to whether the article includes the material at all.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this diff. It's uncited either way whether it's received "little support" or "no support." I don't see the harm in the change that TheGreatIncognito is proposing here. Although I have no doubt that it's possible to find any number of scientists who don't support the view, I do doubt that it's possible to find a reliable source which states explicitly that the view has received "no support." If there is such a source, by all means, let's say "no." If there's a source that says "little," let's say that. In the absence of a secondary source which explicitly says how little, if any, support there is, I think that "little" is a better option.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
CurtisNaito, I know that primary sources are "allowed," but this would be a case where they're not sufficient given that this is a living person and homosexuality is a hot-button issue, so we wouldn't want our interpretation of his video to be attributed to him. That being said, I have no objection to the material being in there if it can be sourced reliably. If you do have secondary sources, it would be better to drop the youtube source altogether. If you don't, the youtube source isn't sufficient and the material should go.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that there's almost certainly no such thing as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" when it comes to summarizing someone's views on homosexuality in a WP:BLP. Just sayin'...— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2006–2014. 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 |
Should it be included what political party Ravi Zacharias belongs to? Whether he is conservative Christian? -- WongFeiHung 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Disingenuous? I remember a sermon by a Southern evangelical minister who stated " God is not a Republican". You could have heard a pin drop - not even a breathe was taken for some time. The quietest, most shocked parishioners I have ever seen. Unbelieveably, he is still their minister - I thought he was a goner. Conservative values does not necessarily mean "Republican" and/or conservative Christian, though there can be some overlap.
I still chuckle when I think of the sermon.
There is an obvious error in the introductory information about Ravi. If he was an atheist until he was 21, how was he preaching in his teens?
Ravi Zacharias tells of being converted at the age of 17, not 21, while in a hospital bed.
Added him to those categories
Why is his speaking at the Mormon event in contrast to his editing the Martin book? I'm about to rephrase it to make it more sensible. Also added links to relevant terms. -- ShawnLee 16:39, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)
Did Ravi's version include a Word-Faith criticism section?
WAVY 10 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that an earlier author shows a palpable dislike for this person, Ravi Zacharias. Here are his previous comments, which I will edit,
"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian Preacher who prefers to present himself as a philosopher and apologist.
Zacharias is descended from a long line of people who have made their living telling stories about the empirically unverifiable, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later as Christian preachers. "
I don't believe the comments about him being a preacher but preferring to call himself a philosopher and apologist conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and neither do the comments about Brahmin priests and christian preachers making their lives telling stories about the empirically unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to throw 'digs' at philosophies we don't care for and to categorize their proponents as preachers rather than philosophers.
I'm going to change these paragraphs to read
"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian philosopher, apologist and preacher.
Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later Christian preachers. "
Unless someone can empirically verify that he is NOT a philosopher and apologist, or that somehow the title of preacher supercedes the title of philosopher and apologist which he lists in the 'about the author' section of his books, these edits should be more in line with the NPOV policy. Also the palpable dislike of religion has been removed and replaced with neutral terms. The fact that SOME religious beliefs and events are empirically unverifiable (while many are empirically verifiable) does not belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.168.46 ( talk) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as having questionable notability, but given the accomplishments stated (albeit without sources), such as Zacharias' international organization, visiting professorships and honourary degrees from recognized institutions, and a notable speech at the Mormon church, this article seems to be deficient only in citing sources. If the info in this article can be verified from independent sources, I see no reason to question notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.21.11 ( talk) 27 July 2024
I agree, Ravi Zacharias is an extremely notable Christian apologist. There is no reason that this article should be deleted or flagged as unnotable. I think it should be given priority to be expanded and have its sources cited. His website rzim.org has extensive information on his ministry (in existence for almost 30 years), books and speaking. There is also lots around the internet about him. Also, he wrote an autobiography in 2006, God In The Shadows. Someone just needs to sit down and expand this article.
Kristamaranatha (
talk)
02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification of definition. I'm new to wiki editing. I just updated the Works list, added a picture from the press release on Ravi's website, and will be working on this page this week. I know that he has indeed received significant coverage, so I'll be working on getting that info. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this particular press release photo free to use? The website even gives instructions on how to save it (and other pictures from the press release) to your computer.
Kristamaranatha (
talk)
19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been several attempts recently to introduce policy-noncompliant biographical information into this article. To avoid repetition of this problem, here are some of the most relevant policies:
I would suggest that editors familiarise themselves with these policies before attempting to introduce such information. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could editors please stop copying material verbatim out of www.rzim.org. It is a copyright violation, as well as being problematic under WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to get more sources in line with this, however I think Ravi Zacharias Qualifies under these notability criteria.
Creative professionals
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. -He is frequently mentioned by other well-known authors/speakers in his field * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -He has his hand in creating the more recent versions of the popular Christian reference book the Kingdom of the Cults.
Academics
If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable:
* The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. - I added a reference to an endorsement by the C.S. Lewis Institute
* The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. * The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. - His books have purportedly been endorsed by Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Leighton Ford, and Norman Geisler according to well-known atheist web-site Infidels.com
-- Kraftlos ( talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression to date is that Zacharias has generated great interest among his devotees, moderate interest from his fellow evangelical apologists, and very little interest from the wider academic and mainstream communities. As WP:GNP states: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist." I have yet to see any evidence of substantial secondary sources on Zacharias.
P.S.: please insert new threads at the bottom of a talkpage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed these were cited sources, at least please recognize the way I framed this information. I was just trying to get things going, I did not claim this was valid information that could go right over to the page; with the exception of the C.S. Lewis institute which I really should have read more carefully (sorry, it was late). The rest of the info in here I outlined as a strategy for establishing notability, if I believed what I had here constituted solid evidence it would have gone onto the page. This was to say, I or someone else working on this could start there to find a source.
As it appears that you are the one who tagged this page for notability and have been the main one editing this page; what types of information would YOU accept as "substantial"? There are no biographies on the man. Please do not refer me to the guidelines when answering this question, I have already read them.
P.S.: sorry about the placement of the thread. I really had no idea that anyone cared, but I do see that there are guidelines for this that I was not previously aware of. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on rewriting this article to reflect Ravi's notability and academic noteworthiness, it's just taking a bit more time than I thought it would. If you would like one reference to start things off, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson refers to Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time.
I propose removing the notability warning at the top of the article. Any thoughts? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Colson was disbarred for his role in the Watergate scandal, something that happened before his conversion. Since then he has become an upstanding member of society and a contributor to progress in the prison system. I don't think you're justified in saying he is not a reliable source for said reason. You're going to have to provide some sources yourself if you still insist he is unreliable. He's quoted in Christianity Today among other places for the comment about Ravi Zacharias. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect an "independent" source to be from outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echo-chamber. That fellow evangelical Christian & frequent co-author of Zacharias sings his praise is an over-the-top fashion in an evangelical newspaper, all seems much to incestuous to be credible. That the newspaper in question was founded by evangelical Billy Graham, who shared with Colson a close connection to Nixon, makes it seem even more so. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Ravi Zacharias is 'famous' primarily for being a famous evangelical apologist rather than for anything specific he has done. Lists of apologists frequently include him, but rarely say anything about his achievements. It could be that he is simply a minor, but very well-connected, apologist. In which case, he probably does not deserve an article of his own -- as it amounts to JAEA (Just Another Evangelical Apologist), born somewhere, grew up somewhere, educated somewhere, wrote some books, gave some talks (which were generally notable for where and/or when they were given rather than the fact that he gave them).
So my question is: what is he famous for? Has he written a particularly famous book? If so, then what was it, and where are the WP:RS secondary source reviews and discussion of it? Has he originated a novel and prominent form of apologetics or apologetic argument? If so, again, then what was it, and where is the WP:RS secondary source discussion of it? And for that matter, where are the prominent atheists and/or apologists for other Christian viewpoints who disagree with him? Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
References that help establish his notability include:
I think clearly he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HokieRNB ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
However, I've gotten more than a little sick of all this -- work the Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article & I'll accept them as establishing notability. I will however delete anything that is not substantiated by these meagre offerings. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
<unindent>No. You never actually tried and have "obviously" not read WP:NOTE & WP:BIO. You dump yet another compost heap of fourth-tier trivia, which you have not even managed to work into the article, and expect me to be impressed. If the bar is set this abysmally low then I could probably establish notability for a local footbridge. I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys if you can find a dozen more student papers/local rags that mention him, or if he was once a talking-head in some obscure radio discussion. I'm tired of swatting at midges -- and will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias). If Zacharias is "so obviously notable" then why is he [almost] never mentioned, let alone discussed in detail, in first-tier sources? Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [Updated Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ]
Could somebody tell me:
All this serves only to confirm my previous opinion of his being barely notable and famous primarily for being famous. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's how:
How many pieces of the puzzle do you need to understand the picture that Zacharias is notable? HokieRNB ( talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Further on the subject of trivia, the Gold Medallion Book Award was awarded in a total of 22 categories in 1995 (and continued with a similar number of categories until 2005, after which it was reformed down to six categories -- meaning that this award has had hundreds of recipients). The main award is the 'Christian Book of the Year', which Zacharias did not win. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Gold_Medallion_Book_Award, only a handful of articles on recipients bother to mention the Gold Medallion. Trying to establish Zacharias' notability using this sort of trivia is exactly what makes me so skeptical about the subject. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
HokieRNB ( talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job Hokie at editing this bio. Thanks for getting those sources, helping with the case for Ravi's notability, and writing a great summary of his ministry activities. I definitely look forward to expanding this article a bit more and making it great. Thanks Hrafn, B and everyone else for jumping into the discussion and helping make things happen here. Being new to wiki, this was extremely helpful and helped show me how things work around here. Blessings! Kristamaranatha ( talk) 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We have accumulated a lot of great citations on this discussion page. It would be great to incorporate these into the article, and think about creating some subheadings to organize things a bit better. We're off to a great start, so let's keep going. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone nominated this article as a Good article. Great job everyone! Just wanted to neaten things up a bit before it gets reviewed. We really need to fill in the gaps between Ravi's ministry beginning in the 70's until the present time. This decade has been well covered, but everything in between needs to be discussed. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Done Zacharias was one of the keynote speakers at
Urbana 93.
[24] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ἀλήθεια (
talk •
contribs)
15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dave Currie completed his Masters thesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1998 on "The Apologetic Method of Ravi Zacharias: A Critical Appraisal And Evaluation". If someone could get access to this document, it could probably prove valuable in providing more depth of insight into the section on "Thought". Right now it seems kind of weak. HokieRNB ( talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
I see no reason why, with a little more effort, this article shouldn't meet the required criteria.
I'm placing the review on hold for these simple changes to be made.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Relata refero ( talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Although I wasn't explicitly looking for a source, I was looking for some specifics on who in the Evangelical community was critical of the decision, or at the very least a better idea of how many is "many". Is Bud Press, Director of the Christian Research Service considered a reliable source? Does he speak on behalf of "many Evangelicals"? Just checking. HokieRNB ( talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(UTC)
I recently removed "Philosopher" from the list of Zacharias' occupations for the simple reason that the man is not one. From what I can see (after careful examination) Zacharias has no formal education in the subject, nor has he ever published a substantial work concerning any serious philosophical discipline. With regards to the comment that he deals with existential philosophical questions, I concede that he does, but then, so does Yancey, arguably in equal depth. Zacharias is, at best, a lay-philosopher and an accomplished theologian - no matter how much we appreciate his works (which i most certainly do), describing him otherwise would be lowering a bar that has fallen far enough in recent years. Dewey56 ( talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dewey56 ( talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Philosopher" should be defined. Does not wikipedia define it? If so, use the definition, measure its application to Mr. Zacharias and edit the entry accordingly. If not, ask Wikipedia to clarify the definition. Keep in mind, regarding "unique contributions" that this might be difficult to qualify since I think it was Alfred North Whitehead who said, "All (Western) Philosophy is a footnote to Plato" and, of course, Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Perhaps a better direction would be to cite prominent people who have referred to him as a philosopher. It is a good observation though, that having a philosohpy doesn't necessarily make one a philosopher.
This is not bad (IMO) for it's summary and even though the critique of Mr. Zacharias' critique here is off-base- it should apply to stars (which lose mass and energy) and also exempt them from the second law of thermo- which they are not- the critique obliquely shows us the issue. It is not a good citation because it is a single item more or less plucked out of the blue from all of his works. A (better) summary of his worldview should be in place or else the randomly selected item or two should be deleted, IMO.
A couple of nights back I added a section on Zacharias' criticism of evolution as violating the second law of thermodynamics. I didn't include a rebuttal of this in the article, but i'd like to point out that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (of which the human body - or any living body, for that matter - is not one, due to natural consumption and excretion). Thus evolution does in no way contradict the second law. Surely Zacharias has noticed this,it is such a basic mistake. Am I alone in suspecting foul play? As much as i value his work, I can't help reaching the conclusion that he is being hopelessly disingenuous. Does anyone have anything to say on the matter? I would be glad to have the issue cleared up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dewey56 (
talk •
contribs)
20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Zarachias appears to be a proponent of the creationist bogus argument according to which evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Calling this wrong is not a matter of point of view, it is a simple scientific fact. The earth is not a closed system, all biological processes are powered by the sun. This is not a matter of opinion, therefore any reference to WP:NPOV in this edit is not warranted. Unless of course, we also allow the factuality of gravity to be called a matter of opinion... -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think a relevant point to be made at this stage of the discussion is the tendancy of Wikipedia articles to deride Christian worldviews and opinion with backhanded remarks that are assumed to be authoritative without any substantiation, which, by the way, is exactly the criticism being levied on the Christian worldview. Articles on any other topic are not treated with the same hostility that infects articles addressing Christianity. This article is NOT about the validity of Zacharias' views, but should be a fair, respectful and unopinionated expressing of those views. Lighten up, Wikipedia. You are not the Idea Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.189.31 ( talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there is also a disproportionate amout of criticism of his view on the 2nd Law. In his book, "A Shattered Visage" Mr Zacharias spends 2 pages out of 193 addressing the problem of evolution contradicting the law which irrefutably will result in the eventual heat-death of our universe. It is also primarily used as an arguement regarding first cause, and secondarily an argument against macro-evolution.
There are plenty of articles where readers can learn whats wrong and right about evolution and creation. Just because someone has alternative views on the world that perhaps do not conform to the scientific consensus does not mean that they should not be tolerated. And I agree about the anti-Christian bias. Portillo ( talk) 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Of the persons cited in [31], which was published by the Institute for Creation Research, I can find no individual with strong scientific credentials and broad influence in the sciences who is actually endorsing the view Zacharias expounds. This is not a matter of controversy within the sciences, and efforts to suggest that it is are, in my view, unambiguously incompatible with WP:NPOV. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Absent a clear, reliable example of advocacy of this position in a major peer-reviewed journal, I think it reasonable to note that the subject's view is not shared by people with expertise in thermodynamics. This does have the disadvantage of being an argument ex silentio. The alternative, I suppose, would be to cite the creationist essay previously cited here and observe that none of the supporters cited there are notable scientists, but this seems circuitous for the reader and unkind to the people who happened to be cited there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We're again seeing requests to delete the lack of support from scientists about this opinion on science, which will doubtless be followed by attempts to restore links to supportive views from creationists. To the extent that the subject holds the opinions ascribed to him here, it should be made clear that he has essentially no support for those opinions from experts on the subject. Is there, for example, a single member of an Ivy League physics department who believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics? MarkBernstein ( talk) 07:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not done all my homework on the Ivy League, but below is a list of faculty members of American universities (mostly public) who think evolution does violate the second law of thermodynamics.
(1) Dr. Donald Kobe, professor of Physics at the University of North Texas in Denton. (2) Dr. David Keller, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of New Mexico. (3) Dr. Gordon Mills, professor emeritus of Biochemistry at the University of Texas. (4) Dr. Thomas Saleska, professor of Biology at Concordia University (Wisconsin). (5) Dr. Charles Bell, professor emeritus of Biological Sciences at San Jose State University. (6) Dr. Norman Schmidt, professor of Chemistry at Georgia Southern University. (7) Dr. Fred Skiff, professor of Physics at the University of Iowa. (8) Dr. Robert Smith, professor of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska. (9) Dr. Michael Strauss, associate professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma. (10) Dr. Frank Cheng, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of Idaho. (11) Dr. C. Stephen Murphee, professor of Biology at Belmont University. (12) Dr. Glen Needham, associate professor of Entomology at The Ohio State University. (13) Dr. L. Whit Marks, professor emeritus of Physics at the University of Central Oklahoma. (14) Dr. Wayne Linn, professor emeritus of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (15) Dr. John Roden, associate professor of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (16) Dr. Donald Kangas, professor of Biology at Truman State University. Wpete510 ( talk) 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If
MarkBernstein could cite your source, and change your wording to "contrary to the position of respected scientist, so-and-so, which states ...", then we could avoid an edit war.
Wpete510 (
talk)
21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
An IP poster asks that we define "scientific community" and demonstrate consensus against the subject’s position. The test described above is informal but convincing. The scientific community is not limited to leading US universities, but I think it’s safe to say that members of the Departments of Physics of Ivy League universities are members of the scientific community. None of them -- not one -- believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. The textbooks used in the Statistical Mechanics course in every one of these institutions -- every one -- includes the second law of thermodynamics. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The term "scientific community" will not work so long as there is an extensive list of respected scientists who oppose evolution. Please see http://creation.com/creation-scientists and http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660. Wpete510 ( talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor who initiated or revived an edit war on this topic today has been promptly blocked and admonished. MarkBernstein ( talk) 02:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
One IP editor summarized (one of) the obvious objections to the subject's reasoning on evolution and thermodynamics, which another IP editor deleted as off-topic. The explanation might be useful here as justifying the reservation that the scientific community rejects the argument that the subject proposes. And that's essential to any understanding of the position the subject holds on evolution and science. MarkBernstein ( talk) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
One editor has recently insisted on deleting language pointing out that the subject's interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is not, in fact, shared wildly (or at all) by experts in thermodynamics. For example, not one member of an Ivy League physics department subscribes to Zacharias' critique. This has been extensively discussed on this page, and the compromise language formerly in the article, and which I shall replace, arose from extensive discussion here. That language is:
A list of people within the scientific community that disagrees with your assessment is listed above in the "Thermodynamics" section. In seeking to follow Wikipedia's POV policy, I propose that the wording be changed to "...an opinion dismissed by most members of the scientific community." Wpete510 ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a single member of this list who holds a tenure-track position in a department of physics at any Ivy League university, or at a university of similar standing, anywhere in the world? Are there two? Is there a physics course at any of these institutions that teaches that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution? This is mere axe grinding, seeking to insert a fringe interpretation under the cloak of NPOV. MarkBernstein ( talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
To your questions, yes, several of the names mentioned are tenured professors at prestigious universities. Yes, at least some of them that include the idea that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution (at least Dr. Saleska, Dr. Skiff, and Dr. Marks before he stopped teaching full-time). No, none of the names mentioned currently teach at an Ivy League school. However, there are more than 10 living Ph.D. graduates from Princeton University alone who have espoused their disbelief in evolution including Raymond Mjolsness (Physics), John Cannon (Organic Chemistry), William Purcell (Physical Chemistry), and Richard Mann (Physical Chemistry). Wpete510 ( talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
None of the universities in your list, with the possible exceptions of Iowa and Texas, are top research institutions. That some ex-scientists from Princeton disbelieve evolution is irrelevant; no Princeton physicist disbelieves evolution because oif it's imagined conflict with the 2nd law. Nor do the physicists you allege agree with Zacharias's; at least, no reliable sources have been proposed. MarkBernstein ( talk) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
References
TheGreatIncognito, apparently a single-purpose account or perhaps a sock, has repeatedly removed long-standing consensus language regarding the subject's views of the second law of thermodynamics. This language has been extensively discussed in this page and its archives, and has been retained in various forms for years. Many sound reasons for this brief disclaimer may be adduced, and many have been adduced above, If we must call this into question, let us remember BRT and discuss it here. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy, of course, to document that the subject's position has been rejected by the scientific community since it was popularized by pseudoscientific tracts in the 1960s. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441 , John W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, New York, 1983, pg. 99-116. We could, for example, enumerate every author used in every thermodynamics textbook assigned in Ivy League physics departments. This would not place the subject in a better light, I think, than the simple statement that the author's argument has won no support.
Alternatively, it might be kinder to the subject to remove any reference to his views on evolution. As I understand the subject's body of work, his opinions on evolution are not central. His biographer will eventually need to consider whether this particular stance is simply a blunder or a deliberate misstatement, but perhaps we tactfully should avert our eyes and pass over the matter in silence. MarkBernstein ( talk)
I've file a WP/ANI notice at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ravi_Zacharias . I believe there's an appropriate template for this, but can't seem to locate it; feel free to replace this notice with the correct one if you know how. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Zacharias's views on evolution are not a huge part of his thought. There's a lot of primary sourcing for his idea that evolution fails to explain the existence of human morality, but in secondary discussions of his work this aspect is barely mentioned. Thus, as I said above, I'm indifferent as to whether the article includes the material at all.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this diff. It's uncited either way whether it's received "little support" or "no support." I don't see the harm in the change that TheGreatIncognito is proposing here. Although I have no doubt that it's possible to find any number of scientists who don't support the view, I do doubt that it's possible to find a reliable source which states explicitly that the view has received "no support." If there is such a source, by all means, let's say "no." If there's a source that says "little," let's say that. In the absence of a secondary source which explicitly says how little, if any, support there is, I think that "little" is a better option.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
CurtisNaito, I know that primary sources are "allowed," but this would be a case where they're not sufficient given that this is a living person and homosexuality is a hot-button issue, so we wouldn't want our interpretation of his video to be attributed to him. That being said, I have no objection to the material being in there if it can be sourced reliably. If you do have secondary sources, it would be better to drop the youtube source altogether. If you don't, the youtube source isn't sufficient and the material should go.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that there's almost certainly no such thing as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" when it comes to summarizing someone's views on homosexuality in a WP:BLP. Just sayin'...— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)