![]() | 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 has massive problems - almost nothing about Truth in Science and a lot of general material on creationism and/or ID that belongs on other pages.
I am a little concerned that some editors seem to conflate humanism with evolution, as if to say that people believe in evolution because they are humanists [or the presence of humanism among evolutionists makes evolution a philosophical view analogous to religious creationism]. But that humanism can be religious, or non-religious is the point: people accept evolution owing to the substantial, verifiable, and parsimonious evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, whether they are theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists, or none of the aforementioned. In stark contrast, there is a direct correlation between religious faith, and belief in creationism or Intelligent Design. Thus, it would be fair to say that acceptance of evolution depends not entirely upon one's philosophical world-view, but upon the evidence. There is no moral symmetry between 'humanist evolutionists' and 'religious creationists': they are not, in other words both. A, 19th January 2007.
A: Concerns noted. However, it now seems that the word "humanist" was a quote from a Sunday Times report, and not POV. As such, its use is relevant. There are other WP pages for discussing the merits of ID - let's keep this professional and just use this one for what the title says.
Hi Drogger5, want to discuss the intro? Why do you think it's POV?
Swangyy 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it right to describe TiS as "conservative" they are trying to subvert the scientific orthodoxy which doesnt seem conservative. on the other hand i dont know much about the structure of christian churches so maybe there is a valid reason for this epithet.
Swangyy 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article Is correct the describe this organisation as "conservative Christian" no statement is made about its scientific attitude. The organisation promotes videos from the Discovery Institute. Would people prefer the description "fundamentalist"?
Wilmot1 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
DweezilBert 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed references to "Conservative" from intro. I have also rephrased it a little to make it less "balanced" and more accurate. Swangyy 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
best wishes Swangyy 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Should a sentence about the attitude of the UK Government be included? Wilmot1 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jim Knight [holding answer 18 October 2006]: It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they 1 Nov 2006 : Column 456W need to help them deliver the national curriculum for science effectively. Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.
The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified." Wilmot1 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The intro has heavy POV, such as the loaded term "specious" and the use of scare quotes. This is an article about an organization. It should describe the organization and its activities, not present arguments about the beliefs the organization promotes. Those arguments may be entirely valid, but they are not encyclopedic. Eseymour 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please can editors stop removing large chunks of content from this article. Firstly, Intelligent Design and Creationism are pseudoscience: there is no controversy here. One cannot make ID and Creationism scientific simply by saying so, or by contorting wording into convincing-sounding arguments. Secondly, the section on Truth in Science and Speciation is directly relevant to this article, because it appears on the TiS website; a site which promotes the putting of ID and Creationism on equal terms with evolutionary biology. I should mention, that the arbitrary removal of large chunks of material without good reason, for example, a consensus among editors on the talk page, constitutes vandalism. A, 23 January 2007, 20:19 (GMT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.147.61 ( talk) 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Having looked at the deletions, I think most are justified. There seem to be some editors very keen on lumping in any and all criticisms of ID, creationism and/or religious opinions - stuff that belongs on other pages. Stuff that isn't about TiS doesn't belong here, however true it is. DweezilBert 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that 86.143.94.198 changed the opening paragraph, which covered teach the controversy, yet Truth in Science clearly demonstrated that they favour the teaching of a "scientific controversy" over evolution and origins on their website. Now of course, TiS supporters will evade the "controversy" over evolution question, by simply stating that TiS only questions "origins". However, just look at the TiS site for yourself, and the quotes from their site on this article: TiS doubt whether the fact of evolution occurred as well. A, 24th January, 00:04 (GMT).
I would like invite other editors to reconsider whether this article is a stub. The content of this article has certainly increased over the past month, or so, and a considerable amount of material is now verifiable. Maybe we should consider this article under the category of creationism, instead of a creationism stub? A, 23rd January 2007, 21:04 (GMT).
I agree - if no one objects I think it should be reclassified. Swangyy 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I reclassified this article from Creationism stub, and United Kingdom organisation stub to Category:Creationism, and Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. If anyone would like to comment on this change, or discuss the status of this, please visit the talk page. Thanks. Blind designer 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the editor who thinks that this section constitutes original research or comment. Wikipedia is not the place for this - it should be deleted. DweezilBert 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
DweezilBert: You simply asserted that the section contains original research. You have provided no argument to support your position. Under your definition of "original research", just about every referenced source on this article is such. "It should be deleted" -- perhaps that is what you want. A, 23rd January 2007, 22:59 (GMT).
Hi, and thanks for mentioning me in your article.
I don't usually contribute to Wikipedia so apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place etc. Under 'Truth in Science and Intelligent Design', you make reference to my letter to The Times and Dr Buggs response. You might want to link to the denoument to this conversation at http://truthinsciencerevealed.blogspot.com/search?q=chris+preedy . This seems to be an example of TiS failing to correct known errors in their materials - to date, Dr Buggs has not responded to any of my letters or to the online posting, and several factually incorrect statements remain on their website.
You might also check the spelling of my name...
Ta.
Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 ( talk) 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be the focus of a lot of activity. I think people should register and log in and discuss the changes here on the talk page.-- Filll 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this article is starting to look good Swangyy 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys, there seems a lot of content on this page about "teach the controversy" and other issues, but the percentage of stuff about this organisation itself seems quite low. The "signal to noise" ratio needs improving. I plan to have a look into this organisation's website and see what we can do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2007
I added a section on TiS projects to improve the focus of this article. Blind designer 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I dislike putting quotation in blue blocks when they are part of the flow of the article. A quotation which is independent of the main text looks good in a block but otherwise it makes it harder to read the article. What is the wikipedia policy on this - what do other editors think?
Aalphas12 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of other ways to do quotations here.-- Filll 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Which quotation blocks should we keep, and which should we revert back to their original style? I would agree, that highlighting a number of quotes, especially the one on eugenics, improves the layout, but others detract from the overall readability of the article. Let us discuss modifications. Blind designer 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you can get a tiny taste of what we get in the US. At least now you will not laugh quite so hard at us.-- Filll 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
To say a group is " subverting" science education is POV, just as it would be POV to say the group is " reforming" science education. The neutral point of view says that they are influencing science education. If you want this article to include the point of view that Truth in Science's goals would harm science education, quote a reliable source who says that. There are plenty of good arguments against giving ID equal time in science classrooms--no need to turn this article (which should be an encyclopedic description of an organization and its activities) into an attack piece. Eseymour 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"subvert" is not POV or an attack and is neutral - it is a statement of the truth. Truth can't be POV. Let's not get bogged down in relativist rubbish in an encyclopedia article about science. We must start from the hard facts - as far as any scientific theory can be true or false
1) evolution is true 2) intelligent design is false.
if you dont accept these facts you should not be editing an encyclopedia. If you do accept these facts "subvert" is neutral.
The word "subvert" has been there for many months, consequently I am reinstating it.
Cheers
Swangyy 16:36 5 April 2007 UCT
If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view...
Blind designer's addition of the Robert Boston quote is fine from a NPOV perspective. It is not specifically about TiS, so I question the relevance to this article. But there's a lot of other general argumentation about ID in this article, and I'll leave that to other editors to clean up. Regards, Eseymour 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Would both sides agree that "redirect" is a more neutral term than "subvert" or the weasel-wordish "influence"?
Swangyy 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Third Opinion Summary: it's ok.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard Buggs is still listed in this article as a member of the Truth in Science board. His name has been removed from their website, so I suggest it also be removed here.
There may also be other changes, I haven't checked in detail.
- Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 ( talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The section entitled "Criticism of Truth in Science and/or intelligent design" is more properly the province of the "Intelligent Design" article as and should be replaced with a sentence or two and a cross-reference to that article where the content of the section should be included. Otherwise it is an excuse for a trirade against a point of view with which the authors don't agree. 221.121.65.132 ( talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a severe editorial cleanup. The summary at the top says too much and the flow from one section to another is often non-existent, and the layout is confusing and inconsistent. The contents of many of the sections should be rewritten to a higher standard. Jgk168421 ( talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 has massive problems - almost nothing about Truth in Science and a lot of general material on creationism and/or ID that belongs on other pages.
I am a little concerned that some editors seem to conflate humanism with evolution, as if to say that people believe in evolution because they are humanists [or the presence of humanism among evolutionists makes evolution a philosophical view analogous to religious creationism]. But that humanism can be religious, or non-religious is the point: people accept evolution owing to the substantial, verifiable, and parsimonious evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, whether they are theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists, or none of the aforementioned. In stark contrast, there is a direct correlation between religious faith, and belief in creationism or Intelligent Design. Thus, it would be fair to say that acceptance of evolution depends not entirely upon one's philosophical world-view, but upon the evidence. There is no moral symmetry between 'humanist evolutionists' and 'religious creationists': they are not, in other words both. A, 19th January 2007.
A: Concerns noted. However, it now seems that the word "humanist" was a quote from a Sunday Times report, and not POV. As such, its use is relevant. There are other WP pages for discussing the merits of ID - let's keep this professional and just use this one for what the title says.
Hi Drogger5, want to discuss the intro? Why do you think it's POV?
Swangyy 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it right to describe TiS as "conservative" they are trying to subvert the scientific orthodoxy which doesnt seem conservative. on the other hand i dont know much about the structure of christian churches so maybe there is a valid reason for this epithet.
Swangyy 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article Is correct the describe this organisation as "conservative Christian" no statement is made about its scientific attitude. The organisation promotes videos from the Discovery Institute. Would people prefer the description "fundamentalist"?
Wilmot1 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
DweezilBert 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed references to "Conservative" from intro. I have also rephrased it a little to make it less "balanced" and more accurate. Swangyy 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
best wishes Swangyy 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Should a sentence about the attitude of the UK Government be included? Wilmot1 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jim Knight [holding answer 18 October 2006]: It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they 1 Nov 2006 : Column 456W need to help them deliver the national curriculum for science effectively. Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.
The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified." Wilmot1 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The intro has heavy POV, such as the loaded term "specious" and the use of scare quotes. This is an article about an organization. It should describe the organization and its activities, not present arguments about the beliefs the organization promotes. Those arguments may be entirely valid, but they are not encyclopedic. Eseymour 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please can editors stop removing large chunks of content from this article. Firstly, Intelligent Design and Creationism are pseudoscience: there is no controversy here. One cannot make ID and Creationism scientific simply by saying so, or by contorting wording into convincing-sounding arguments. Secondly, the section on Truth in Science and Speciation is directly relevant to this article, because it appears on the TiS website; a site which promotes the putting of ID and Creationism on equal terms with evolutionary biology. I should mention, that the arbitrary removal of large chunks of material without good reason, for example, a consensus among editors on the talk page, constitutes vandalism. A, 23 January 2007, 20:19 (GMT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.147.61 ( talk) 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Having looked at the deletions, I think most are justified. There seem to be some editors very keen on lumping in any and all criticisms of ID, creationism and/or religious opinions - stuff that belongs on other pages. Stuff that isn't about TiS doesn't belong here, however true it is. DweezilBert 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that 86.143.94.198 changed the opening paragraph, which covered teach the controversy, yet Truth in Science clearly demonstrated that they favour the teaching of a "scientific controversy" over evolution and origins on their website. Now of course, TiS supporters will evade the "controversy" over evolution question, by simply stating that TiS only questions "origins". However, just look at the TiS site for yourself, and the quotes from their site on this article: TiS doubt whether the fact of evolution occurred as well. A, 24th January, 00:04 (GMT).
I would like invite other editors to reconsider whether this article is a stub. The content of this article has certainly increased over the past month, or so, and a considerable amount of material is now verifiable. Maybe we should consider this article under the category of creationism, instead of a creationism stub? A, 23rd January 2007, 21:04 (GMT).
I agree - if no one objects I think it should be reclassified. Swangyy 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I reclassified this article from Creationism stub, and United Kingdom organisation stub to Category:Creationism, and Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. If anyone would like to comment on this change, or discuss the status of this, please visit the talk page. Thanks. Blind designer 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the editor who thinks that this section constitutes original research or comment. Wikipedia is not the place for this - it should be deleted. DweezilBert 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
DweezilBert: You simply asserted that the section contains original research. You have provided no argument to support your position. Under your definition of "original research", just about every referenced source on this article is such. "It should be deleted" -- perhaps that is what you want. A, 23rd January 2007, 22:59 (GMT).
Hi, and thanks for mentioning me in your article.
I don't usually contribute to Wikipedia so apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place etc. Under 'Truth in Science and Intelligent Design', you make reference to my letter to The Times and Dr Buggs response. You might want to link to the denoument to this conversation at http://truthinsciencerevealed.blogspot.com/search?q=chris+preedy . This seems to be an example of TiS failing to correct known errors in their materials - to date, Dr Buggs has not responded to any of my letters or to the online posting, and several factually incorrect statements remain on their website.
You might also check the spelling of my name...
Ta.
Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 ( talk) 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be the focus of a lot of activity. I think people should register and log in and discuss the changes here on the talk page.-- Filll 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this article is starting to look good Swangyy 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys, there seems a lot of content on this page about "teach the controversy" and other issues, but the percentage of stuff about this organisation itself seems quite low. The "signal to noise" ratio needs improving. I plan to have a look into this organisation's website and see what we can do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2007
I added a section on TiS projects to improve the focus of this article. Blind designer 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I dislike putting quotation in blue blocks when they are part of the flow of the article. A quotation which is independent of the main text looks good in a block but otherwise it makes it harder to read the article. What is the wikipedia policy on this - what do other editors think?
Aalphas12 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of other ways to do quotations here.-- Filll 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Which quotation blocks should we keep, and which should we revert back to their original style? I would agree, that highlighting a number of quotes, especially the one on eugenics, improves the layout, but others detract from the overall readability of the article. Let us discuss modifications. Blind designer 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you can get a tiny taste of what we get in the US. At least now you will not laugh quite so hard at us.-- Filll 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
To say a group is " subverting" science education is POV, just as it would be POV to say the group is " reforming" science education. The neutral point of view says that they are influencing science education. If you want this article to include the point of view that Truth in Science's goals would harm science education, quote a reliable source who says that. There are plenty of good arguments against giving ID equal time in science classrooms--no need to turn this article (which should be an encyclopedic description of an organization and its activities) into an attack piece. Eseymour 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"subvert" is not POV or an attack and is neutral - it is a statement of the truth. Truth can't be POV. Let's not get bogged down in relativist rubbish in an encyclopedia article about science. We must start from the hard facts - as far as any scientific theory can be true or false
1) evolution is true 2) intelligent design is false.
if you dont accept these facts you should not be editing an encyclopedia. If you do accept these facts "subvert" is neutral.
The word "subvert" has been there for many months, consequently I am reinstating it.
Cheers
Swangyy 16:36 5 April 2007 UCT
If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view...
Blind designer's addition of the Robert Boston quote is fine from a NPOV perspective. It is not specifically about TiS, so I question the relevance to this article. But there's a lot of other general argumentation about ID in this article, and I'll leave that to other editors to clean up. Regards, Eseymour 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Would both sides agree that "redirect" is a more neutral term than "subvert" or the weasel-wordish "influence"?
Swangyy 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Third Opinion Summary: it's ok.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard Buggs is still listed in this article as a member of the Truth in Science board. His name has been removed from their website, so I suggest it also be removed here.
There may also be other changes, I haven't checked in detail.
- Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 ( talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The section entitled "Criticism of Truth in Science and/or intelligent design" is more properly the province of the "Intelligent Design" article as and should be replaced with a sentence or two and a cross-reference to that article where the content of the section should be included. Otherwise it is an excuse for a trirade against a point of view with which the authors don't agree. 221.121.65.132 ( talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a severe editorial cleanup. The summary at the top says too much and the flow from one section to another is often non-existent, and the layout is confusing and inconsistent. The contents of many of the sections should be rewritten to a higher standard. Jgk168421 ( talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)