Wikipedia

Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 17

< Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups
(Redirected from Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Archive 17)
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Pepinos in topic Objections to evolution
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Structure

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to make the following suggestion as regards to the structure of this article:

  • Introduction
  • History of the controversy
    • (including) Controversy in recent times
  • Arguments relating to the definition of science (will include limitations, theory vs fact, Falsifiability, False dichotomy, etc)
  • Arguments relating to science
    • Biology
    • Geology
    • Other scientific arguments
  • Arguments relating to religion and public policy
    • Science Education
    • Separation of Church and State
    • Free Speech
    • Theology
  • Miscellaneous

Hrafn42 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with this arrangement - though common to any using the current content - is that once you leave the history section, every other section is an analysis of a creationist claim or arguements against science. Besides the tangental and short "Quote mining", nothing deals with the scientific claims and arguements against creationism. We really need to come up with a way to allow this to be interleaved a bit. Adam Cuerden talk 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The trouble would appear to be with the existing content, not with the proposed structure. Part of my reason for suggesting it is an attempt to turn this article into a comprehensive exposition of the disagreements between Creationists and the Scientific (and wider academic) community, rather than a laundry-list of anti-evolution arguments. A large chunk of the existing content will get thrown into the Definition (& Philosophy of) Science bucket (including the Quote-Mine section, which relates to questions of what is & is not "scientific research"), where it can be restructured into something coherent (and the chaff removed). Hrafn42 10:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I support it, then, but wonder if we could come up with better section headers than "Arguements relating to X" Adam Cuerden talk 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then by all means rename them. :D I was too busy trying to get the broad-brushstokes in my first run through, to worry too much on the details. See comments below. Hrafn42 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguments is so pejorative. Couldn't we replace argument with Controversies? Orangemarlin 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't find 'arguments' to be pejorative in this context, but I'm fine with the one remaining 'arguments' title (the other two having already become 'disputes' & 'issues') being changed. I would however prefer if it becomes something other than 'controversies' -- as I feel that this word implies something a bit too big, for anything below the overall controversy. 'Disagreement' or some other synonym would be fine. Hrafn42 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Well, it is a big issue. The creationists are trying to force religion into teaching of science (I'm having a brain infarction reading the new book, 40 days and 40 nights, which is about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case). It is controversy, but not in the case of whether Evolution is right or wrong. Maybe Argument works. Orangemarlin 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm having a brain infarction reading the new book, 40 days and 40 nights" Maybe this book would be a good source for a section on the physical appearance of the women involved in the trial, or the fashion sense (or lack there of) of participants in the creation-evolution controversy.

New Sections

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In creating the new structure, I've attempted to populate them with roughly-hewn (chainsaw quality) contents. Please feel free to file off any rough edges you see, in order to get the article running more smoothly together.

Also, the Definitions/Philosophy section could do with some major work, preferably by somebody with a good background in Philosophy of Science, to make the whole thing more clear, concise and cohesive. As it stands it is mostly just a 'bucket' that I dumped all the relevant sections form the old (lack-of-)structure into. Hrafn42 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Please note that there is already an Objections to evolution article, which is the most appropriate place to document, in detail, specific objections to evolution (and the scientific communities rebuttals to them). Hrafn42 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder (OK, maybe a lot) that we should merge a few of these articles. The difference between this article and Objections to evolution is what? It's so small as to be insignificant. Orangemarlin 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The format is very different. Objections to evolution goes into a reasonable amount of detail on the specifics of each objection, with a fairly flat structure, whereas this article (at least the way I'm pushing it) attempts to give a structured overview. I would prefer to see the two articles differentiated & overlap minimised, rather than see them converge (as they were tending to under the no-structure structure) merge. Hrafn42 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Still repetitive. But as opposed to some other editors, I think the default position is more information rather than less. So if it really doesn't make sense to combine them or that they really provide different information, keep them. Orangemarlin 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Very clever, changing an article on the creation-evolution controversy to an article on objections to creationism. Very clever. Literally.
I'd like to remind you that EVOLUTION is whether species A evolved to species B (through any possible mechanism). NATURAL SELECTION is the proposed theory that provides a framework for evolution. Compare evolution with "gravity" and natural selection with "theory of relativity". Many people, including scientists, tend to confuse evolution with the theory of natural selection, due to the lack of another competing scientific theory. Practically speaking, evolution=natural selection. Nevertheless, evolution is (within the limitations of empiric science in general) and observable FACT, while natural selection is a proposed (and highly successful) THEORY. For example, we can actually compare the DNA sequence between a species 1million, 0.5million, 100k and 0 years old and observe a gradual change. This change is EVOLUTION and can be verified by anyone (you can actually see the variations emerge in the DNA pattern). HOW it came to occur is another matter altogether. I'm not sure whether my addition is relevant, but this is the first time I write something on wikipedia. Pepinos 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I thought that evolution is the combination of spontaneous, random mutation and non-random natural selection. You are correct in stating that mutation can be observed, e.g. in bacteria thanks to the fact that their generational cycle is so short. As for natural selection, why, you can see that in operation as well. Just think of bacteria (again) becoming resistent to anti-biotics. Whether that is conclusive proof for evolution as the definitive theory explaining the make-up of the natural world is another matter entirely.
--Recoloniser 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The stochastic process (i.e. selection of random events) is the theoretical framework which is assumed to underlie the observed transition from species A to species B and the gradual emergence of new _genetic_ traits. This is called natural selection and it is, as you correctly note, a process that combines random and non-random events. For example, the observation that bacteria acquire the ability to survive even in the presence of antibiotics can be considered a form of evolution (if said ability is acquired genetically). We assume that this happened because the "fittest" bacteria survived, according is the theory of natural selection. Even if we choose a new theory (say theory X), we still have to account for evolution, meaning the observable fact that bacteria have acquired that ability. Pepinos 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that talk.orgins is not a NPOV RS

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

It is an advocacy website setup to combat an opposing point of view. As such, references to this website should clearly identify the source of the reference in the prose of the article itself (except in the case where talk.origins is just hosting a document of a well known NPOV RS.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.62.0.252 (talk • contribs) 07:57, April 24, 2007

In neither of the two references that I recently made to T.O is POV at issue. The first was merely delineating the extent of the controversy (if you like, you can add a similar, balancing, one from AiG or similar). If a POV RS is referring to it, then it clearly is part of the controversy. The second was to a direct quote at that website of a well-known creationist. Neither piece of prose referencing T.O contained any POV of T.O, so there is no reason to to "clearly identify the source." Hrafn42 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And the point is what? EVERY single source in the world represents one POV or another. Talk.origins is an outstanding resource to countering claims made by creationists. When I edit these articles, I use the source, but I might pull one of the references cited in every claim that talk.origins use. Orangemarlin 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, then, why not rename this article "countering the claims of creationists."???? But that is not the title of this page. So why this edit diff? You'd be better off citing the Henry Morris article. Relying on talk.origins to accurately summarize the arguments of their opponents is not reliable.
I tried to bring the reference into line with wikipedia standards. However, it may still violate original research, in that you really should have a reliable NPOV reference to back up your claim that "Young Earth Creationists have denied..." After all, a party to the controversy could conceivably be taking a single person's comments to imply it is representative of all young earth creationists when it may not be. (It may be representative, but you should endeavor to find better sources than talk origins to establish this).
Reliable sources do not need to be written from the neutral point of view; they only need to be reliable. Every source ultimately has some bias. --h2g2bob 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, I agree. But in this article, (or in any article dealing with a controversy involving opposing viewpoints), a participant to the controversy characterizing an opposing party's argument and then knocking it down is inherently unreliable. For example, would you use an contract attorney's characterization of Bill Gate's business practices if you knew from the outset that the attorney has been (or is currently) involved in a lawsuit against microsoft without mentioning this obvious conflict of interest in the prose? Wouldn't it be better to instead quote the judge (or, if there is no judge, just disclose the conflict of interest while quoting the attorney). See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability and Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. That Wikipedia may not have any explicit policy or caution on the use of a party to a controversy's characterization of an opposing viewpoint doesn't really matter. Logic should tell you that in an article about the controversy, such characterizations need to be fully disclosed (or you could just find a RS with no obvious conflict of interest). Obviously, it is just easier to google talk origins, but talk origins is a sophisticated "information" clearing house run by and for one side of the controversy.
Taken care of. Creationist cite used for creationist side, and vice-versa. SheffieldSteel 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Thanks.

Nuclear Physics section is now in violation of WP:Undue weight

The ICR 'research' is clearly fringe pseudoscience, and should not be presented as legitimate. Please read the article on the Institute for Creation Research & WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. I would reccomend that, unless somebody can provide evidence that it has been published in a reputable, peer-reviwed, physics journal, that it either be eliminated from the article, or clearly characterised as pseudoscience. Hrafn42 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about a controversy, and assuming ICR is representative of creationists, how can you write an article about a controversy they are a part of without illustrating their arguments?ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You include their arguments, but you give them (the minority/pseudoscientific arguments) lesser weight (in terms of word-count and/or emphasis) than the majority/scientific rebuttal. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say "ICR reseach", it says "Creationists point to research indicating that radioisotope decay rates are not constant, and argue that this undermines the radiometric dating techniques used to estimated the age of the Earth." It also states that scientists have "argued that this does not invalidate radiometric dating." ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this 'research' is of negligble scientific credibility, so simply calling it "research", without some fairly stringent qualification, is to give it undue weight. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't actually know the research. I was assuming that it was real scientific research that was either mis-quoted or mis-applied or mis-interpreted. ImprobabilityDrive 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The compiling of these statements may be a violation of original research (it seems to me that in the context of an article about a controversy over creation and evolution, if a contributor finds quotes directly, wikipedia is a secondary source, and not a ternary source that it is supposed to be, and hence this might be original research--especially if the ICR is not representative of creationists) If you want to challenge it, I think you'd have a stronger case for original research. ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The ICR is one of the oldest and most prominent Creationist organisations. The only comparable body would be Answers in Genesis (although it has recently split, so it is less certain if it will keep this profile). Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The scientists are clearly stating that the creationists are incorrect, and the clear implication is that the creationist don't know how to interpret results. ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The scientific view is that the Creationists core results are based on shoddy 'research.' Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe more details are needed. My guess is that if you dig deeper, the "creationists" are probably misconstruing statistical variations in decay rates.
If this were an article on evolution, you would have a stronger case for undue weight--though you could probably avoid undue weight to creationists without resorting to calling them pseudo-scientists. ImprobabilityDrive 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
See List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts -- Creation Science is pseudoscience. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look. I am surprised to see such an article on wikipedia. I can understand why it is disputed (not that it is not accurate--I can understand that if one were in any of the enumerated groups, one might feel maligned). But in the case at hand, was this ICR's own resarch, or the ICR simply using, abusing, or otherwise misunderstanding and mischaracterizing real scientific research published by bona fide scientists in officially approved journals? ImprobabilityDrive 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the ICR article at wikipedia has a nice example of how to avoid original research. See the two citations for the sentence "The ICR website and the Washington Post obituary for Henry Morris both state that he founded the organization in 1970." In this case, a suspect source (the ICR) is bolstered by the Washington Post obituary (written by a Washington Post Journalist). Assuming the Washington Post is a reliable source, wikipedia is not a secondary source, but a ternary (as it should be), even though it also points to a primary source (the ICR website). ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I just read NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. The problem with attempting to apply that to this article is that this article is not a pseudoscientific topic; it is a socio-political topic. I think you'd be better off with original research arguments. See section below. ImprobabilityDrive 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Creation Science is a pseudoscientific topic. Therefore the scientific claims of Creationists, (and most particularly those of the ICR, a leading advocate of Creation Science) is clearly also pseudoscience. Hrafn42 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive:

  • The "consensus view" is nothing more than the view of SheffieldSteel & an anonymous editor, over a very short period (well under 24 hours). It is not a view shared by Orangemarlin or myself. Reverting me on the basis of this non-existent consensus is therefore unwarranted.
  • The ICR do not have (direct) "research indicating that radioisotope decay rates are not constant," they merely have 'research' which "indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago," from which they then infer "The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week." Even were their research credible, the statement would be unwarranted.
  • Their research is however not credible, it is widely acknowledged (including by wikipedia itself) that Creation Science (of which ICR is the leading purveyor) is pseudoscience. See [1] for example for criticism of their RATE project.

Hrafn42 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of confusing matters, Hrafn42 makes good points on my talk page and below in the talk section headed with "Guidelines for Using primary sources" section, and above. However, I suspect those comments should have been made here. I do not object to Hrafn42 undoing my revert. In light of his point that the research pointed to by the ICR was in fact commisioned by the ICR, I certainly think the article stating "creationists point to research indicating" should have at least been worded differently, perhaps "The ICR points to research they commissioned indicating..." I'll leave the wording of this to others until I have a chance to go through the sources better. But in short it sounds like this was much ado about a sentence that was slightly misleading (unintentionally so, no doubt). ImprobabilityDrive 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of consensus, I would like to offer two alternatives:

The Institute for Creation Research has claimed that:

"Recent experiments commissioned by the [ICR's own] RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago."
From this they infer that:
"The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week."

If this were true, it would demolish the hypothesis that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.

However, scientists point to an alternative inference that the experiments (which it is claimed were conducted by scientists inexperienced in Geochronology) were merely methodologically flawed.[2]

Alternatively, and far more tersely, my original:

Creationists have denied that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.

Hrafn42 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This blog entry may give you an indication as to how credible RATE is:[3]

I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were

invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young- earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a “cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at

this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle.

Hrafn42 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for Using primary sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

This (No original research(Primary Sources)) is interesting, how should it (or should it) be applied to this article? It seems by the above criteria, much of the article needs to be at least reworded. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out to ImprobabilityDrive:

  • ICR was the primary source (it is research they commissioned).
  • ICR's research has not been verified by any scientific source, nor has it been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
  • ICR made a MASSIVE (and unwarranted) "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim.

Hrafn42 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that your your comments here and on my talk page are noteworthy and important in the context of undue weight. I don't want to confuse matters, though. This section (Guidelines for Using primary sources) was about a bigger issue than the ICR pointing to research now asserted to be their own research. ImprobabilityDrive 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to ask ourselves whether ICR is a credible source for:

  • What Creationists think (as they are a leading Creationist organisation).
  • Primary scientific research (their RATE Project results that "Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago."
  • Their interpretation of these results (that "he results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week").
  • Their interpretation of the results of other scientists.

I would claim that they are a reliable source for the first point, but not for the other three.Hrafn42 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with WP:Undue Weight

With respect, Hrafn42, I think you might be misinterpreting or misapplying WP guidelines on primary sources: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. This means that we must avoid interpreting claims, not that the ICR must do so. They are a primary source and they are not bound by our guidelines.

Having said that, I'm sorry to see such disagreement and reverting going on as a result of my edits. I certainly didn't intend to kick off a controversy. Luckily, I think we all want the same thing here: a quality, neutral article. I am inclined towards following ImprobabilityDrive's suggestion and seeking a form of words that gives due weight to the ICR claims, for example, "Creationists point to research which they claim implies a variability in radioactive decay rates," ideally following it up with a cited scientific source saying that the research in question implies no such thing. However, I am open to all suggestions, as long as we stick to these guidelines:

  • Give both sides a say
  • Attribute due, rather than equal, weight (and this particular debate is clearly on science's "turf")
  • Make sure the material is put into context (it's all about the estimated age of the Earth)

SheffieldSteel 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: The problem is that the ICR 'research' is so badly flawed, unreliable and partisan that calling it such without explicit and emphatic qualification or rebuttal would be misleading -- this rebuttal is not "ideal," it is essential to avoid undue weight. Additionally, the research in no way implies the conclusion that they infer from it. The more reasonable inference would be that they had made a mistake and needed to recheck their methodology (or better yet, get somebody who was actually experienced in Experimental Geochronology to conduct them).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation (I'm not sure who this is paraphrasing) & ICR are making very extraordinary claims on the basis of substantiation that is so flimsy that to call it "ordinary" would be gross flattery.
I have made a couple of suggestions for how to handle this issue above in the 'Nuclear Physics section is now in violation of WP:Undue weight' section. The first explicitly rebuts their 'research' and their 'inference,' the second avoids the problem by mentioning neither and merely characterises it as an (implicitly unsubstantiated, as they have provided no legitimate substantiation) 'claim.' Hrafn42 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd like to dispute your third point. This section is not "all about the estimated age of the Earth" - that is in the Geology section. This section is about Creationists attempting to discredit a fundamental part of Nuclear Physics (constancy of decay rates) in order to support their views on the Age of the Earth. The point being that to win on AotE, they must do massive collateral damage to Nuclear Physics (a far wider and more important field than Geochronology). Hrafn42 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said; however, I don't like the alternatives posted above (assuming you meant the ones in boxes). The first one seems to give too much space to the ICR statements, and the second seems to be avoiding the issue altogether - I think the ICR claims must be described briefly and then refuted. I'll give it some more thought. SheffieldSteel 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that the path that the ICR follow to get to their "nuclear decay rates are inconstant" conclusion is tortuous, the space that they are given is unavoidable, if a comprehensible rebuttal is to be provided. Hrafn42 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much over the hill, through the trees, under the stream, around some trees, over another hill, down a valley, over a stream .... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have an agreement on the need to present the controversy as one where the scientific side has the overwhelming weight of evidence on its side, but only disagree on how best to do so.

My suggestions to date have been of the type of either "Creationists claim X, the scientific consensus overwhelmingly disagrees" or "Creationists claim W->X, the scientific consensus is that W is fatally flawed, and that you can't get to X from W in any case" (which ,of necessity, requires more details of the Creationist claims in order to credibly rebut them). If there is either an alternative presentation, or a refinement of either of my presentations, I'd like to hear it. Hrafn42 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation (I'm not sure who this is paraphrasing) & ICR are making very extraordinary claims on the basis of substantiation that is so flimsy that to call it "ordinary" would be gross flattery." -- Assuming it is okay to cite the ICR on their own claims (my RFC is seeking clarificaiton on this, and I don't think it is kosher to cite a primary source)..but for the sake of this discussion, extraordinary claims in the article need to be substantiated. A link to an ICR site would substantiate that the ICR made some such statement. That the ICR made this statement is thus substantiated. You do not need to make a case that the ICR's extraordinary statement is correct. ImprobabilityDrive 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not with the question of whether ICR made these claims but whether their claims have any shred of credibility. Their claims are extraordinary, thus they require extraordinary substantiation from ICR in order to have them presented as having any credibility at all. Hrafn42 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a third possibility (I've expanded it out to cover the whole section):

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, that they claim demonstrates that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which the infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occured, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.



The scientific community point to numerous flaws in these experiments, and the fact that the Creationist scientists conducting them were inexperienced in Experimental Geochronology, and therefore that no such inference can be inferred.

Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating, nor is there any evidence of a variation in decay rates or physical constants over time. The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. It is further argued that "[i]t is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates."

If this formulation is still unacceptable, could people at least either indicate which of the three formulations they dislike the least, or propose a formulation of their own. Hrafn42 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: On the wikipedia approved method of using primary sources in a socio-political article about a controversy

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I am requesting comment from disinterested wikipedians on the wikipedia approved method of using primary sources in a soci-political article about a controversy involving scientists and religiously motivated groups (churches, creation-"scientists" (often read: pseudoscientists), et al).

It seems to me, after reading No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution pages, that secondary neutral point of view reliable sources (NPOV RS) are to be sought whenever possible; but when not possible, the use of primary sources is acceptable in this article, with certain caveats. Specifically, using such primary sources entails reliance on published material from participants in the controversy. As such, prose in the article should make it clear in the text that this is the view, claim, or counter-claim of some participant of the controversy, and that it not be left as an exercise to the reader to figure out which sources are disinterested by trudging through all of the references. Furthermore, while interested editors are welcome, they should be careful and conscious to contribute as though they are disinterested parties, and not attempt to resolve the controversy but to describe it. This is best achieved by following the explicit rules as well as the spirit of No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution.

In this particular article, it is not an article about a pseudoscientific topic; rather, it is an article about a controversy among many groups, some of which are scientists, and others of which, in the context of this controversy, are labeled pseudoscientists, and yet others, from conservative parishioners (many of which may not want creationism taught in public schools) to politically savvy athiests to seperation of church and state supporters. While it might be appropriate to make the point on an article on creationism that creation-science is a pseudoscience, making the point in this article is POV, unless handled with tact and care. This is not to say that one is precluded in this present article from referncing and describing material where scientists view creation-scientists as pseudoscientists, or from referencing and describing material in which so-called creationists assert that scientists are actually engaging in the promotion of a pseudoreligion, but we must remember that this is an article on a socio-political phenomenom, and not a pseudoscientific or pseudoreligious topic, and must describe such assertions accordingly.

I think this article has great potential. In the end, after it is written, a reader cannot ascertain which side of the controversy the contributors were on, the article could be a truly great article. (per instructions, signed with date only). 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


This is all irrelevant, since almost no primary sources are being used. In any event, the relevant issue is the undue weught clause of NPOV. As such, creationism in most forms is a pseudoscience, the vast majority of scientists think it has no standing and NPOV requires us to give it correspondingly low levels of weight and make clear the consensus that it is pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the consensus among scientists is that creationism is pseudoscience. But this is an article about a controversy involving, among others, creationists. By making it clear at every (limited) mention, as you suggest, that creationists are pseduoscientists, you have turned this article into an extension of talk origins and other similarly minded advocate evolution clearinghouses. Which, in the context of this article, on the controversy, dimminishes wikipedia. Simply mention the consensus, but do not, as you suggest, censor and limit the creationists component of the controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of censorship at all, rather it is, as Josh pointed out, a matter of undue weight. There are controversies on many things: did aliens land at Roswell; was 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy; did and airplane actually hit the Pentagon on that date; did Oswald act alone; did Pius XI and XII aid the Nazis; did the Holocaust even happen; was Jesus a real person; was the Spanish government responsible for 11-M and so on. However, as these are fringe theories, undue weight requires that they be treated as minority views. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of comprehension, but I don't understand the question / RfC. Can it be paraphrased? Or exposition separated from opening statement, and signed? (just a relatively disinterested editor who'd like to answer the call) Demong 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even socio-political controversies need to be bounded by the objective (and particularly the scientific) evidence. For example, how to deal with Global Warming is a legitimate controversy, but taking a position that it could be solved by Perpetual Motion machines would not be scientifically legitimate, as it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Positions that contradict the objective evidence should be either ignored or, if notable, presented in such a way as to leave no doubts as to their lack of legitimacy. Hrafn42 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"it is, as Josh pointed out, a matter of undue weight."--No, taking the usual undue weight argument that is fully justified in a scientific article is POV in this article. It boxes the controversy into a pseudoscience versus science controversy. This controversy is a socio-policital controversy that touches on science, pseudoscience, religion, spirituality, atheism, philosophy, worldview, etc. Taking the scientific POV in this article is POV, especially since most scientists (and especially biologists) are firmly on the side of evolution and not creation. By taking a scientific POV in this article, you're biasing the article, instead of simply providing an account of the controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
When commenting on aspects that are political, then you are correct. When commenting on aspects that are scientific questions then undue weight applies. All of the matters in question are within the scientific set. In any event, there is no scientific POV here, in fact the scientific POV would be far harsher. JoshuaZ 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"I would like to point out that even socio-political controversies need to be bounded by the objective (and particularly the scientific) evidence."-- Sure, but there are more scienctific perspectives than just biological science, which is the POV that many contributors seem to be giving this article. There is political science. Social science. Anthropological science. Philosophical science. Many of the interested parties responding to this RFC want to stick to the biological sciences POV to avoid giving undue weight to the claims of pseudoscientists. In a socio-political controversy, I think it would be better to stick to a tone and account similar to the political sciences, treating, as painful as this sounds, the assertions of creationists and biological scientists with the same even hand. This controversy is much bigger than what is captured on talk origins. Again, in an article on evolution, or creationism, the biolgoical science POV is what is called for at wikipedia for undue weight concerns. But this particular article is different. It is about a controversy that goes well beyond science versus pseudoscience. Having a scientific POV in this article gives POV and undue weight to science. ImprobabilityDrive 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No. This has no policy basis or basis in precedent. When discussing any biological or other scientific matter we must make clear what the scientific consensus is. JoshuaZ 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect, this is a socio-political matter involving scientists. An NPOV tone for this article would be the tone used by an historian, political scientist, or anthropologist. The matter at hand is not science, but a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
ImprobabilityDrive's statement contains a number of major errors:
  • "Sure, but there are more scienctific perspectives than just biological science, which is the POV that many contributors seem to be giving this article." I would point out that the Creation-evolution_controversy#Biology section is still a stub. The scientific perspectives that have been in evidence so far have been those of Geology, Cosmology and Nuclear Physics, not Biology.
Your observation is noted, and it is strange, isn't it, that the biology section is a stub. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a controversy about differences in perspectives of various sciences. All the sciences are on the same side on this. It is a controversy between the scientific community as a whole, and Creationists, over core scientific principles such as Methodological Naturalism, Testability and Reproducibility.
It (the creation-evolution controversy) is much larger than that. Religious people and scientists disagree on much, but these disagreements are often unnoteworthy. The reason this disagreement is monumental is the venue (school boards, classrooms, courts, political trails, ...) and its ramifications (childhood education, seperation of church and state, the existence of God). ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "It is about a controversy that goes well beyond science versus pseudoscience." I would dispute this. It is a controversy that it fundamentally about the rival value of the Scientific Method versus Biblical exegesis as a way of knowing the world. This controversy may spill over into education, politics and law, but the entire conflict can be traced back to "science versus pseudoscience."
I'm reading a book on the scopes trial, a famous episode in the creation-evolution controversy. Good book. Noteworthy author. I think the author would disagree with your assertion. With respect, your opinion is as valid is mine, but our POVs should not color this article. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn42 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary and Problematic Secondary Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

The table below is just a few sources from the article that are problematic under the RFC, and are quick examples to refute the claim that the article uses almost no primary sources. It did not take long to compile (just start examining each source). ImprobabilityDrive 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Link if available Title/author Where used Comments
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer Hovind, Dr. Kent "The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1] ..." Primary source used to support original research/synthesis.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? Myers, PZ "The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[3]" Science blog. Party to the controversy.
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10 NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution "The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[3]" Primary source. Synthesis. Original research. Party to the controversy.
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION "The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[3]" Primary source. Synthesis. Original research. Party to the controversy.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution "The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[3]" Primary source. Synthesis. Original research. Party to the controversy.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event Pinholster, Ginger "The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[3]" Primary source. Synthesis. Original research. Press release of party to the controversy.
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Renka_papers/intell_design.htm The Political Design of Intelligent Design, Rnka, Russell D. "While the controversy has a long history,[6] today it is mainly over what constitutes good science,[7][8] with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.[9][10][11][12][13]" A professor who uses wikipedia as a source in the third paragraph (but note, he clearly identifies wikipedia is the source in the text, and doesn't leave it to a footnote.) Otherwise, a professor of political science would be a great source for this article. Also, each grouping of these should be combined into a single reference. That is, instead of having 8 individual citations, there should only be three (6 in one, 7-8 in another, and 9-13.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i2/creationII.asp Creation Evangalism Ham, Ken "'We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day.'[87]" Primary source. Dead link. Party to the controversy. Synthesis/original research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html An Index to Creationist Claims, Isaak, Mark "This argument usually involves scientists either who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study didn't include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.[90]" Primary source, unreliable secondary source. Party to controversy characterizing opposing viewpoint. Conflict of interest.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i2/creationII.asp
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html 		Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould, Stephen Jay "Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:[44]" Primary source. Party to the controversy. Very usable with care.

The use of such sources may be allowed, but must be done with care and tact, according to No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution pages. ImprobabilityDrive 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. First, please explain what original research is going on with the Hovind source? Second, the IAP and the NSTA are interesting but are not problematic. Nor for that matter are they "parties" they are rather reflection of what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Please actually read WP:NPOV. Similarly, the Talk Origins Archive is a resource whose validity and reliability has been acknolwedged by a multitude of media sources and organizations,, inclusing Scientific American, the Smithsonian, and the National Academy of Science. For Wikipedia purposes, the Archive is more than reliable. As to the last one, I fail to see how a relevant expert in the field noting what Wikipedia says somehow makes the source itself unreliable. In summary, I don't see a single one of the objections above to be either persuasive or have any actual basis in policy. JoshuaZ 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"please explain what original research is going on with the Hovind source" Quoting from the first footnote: "[1]See Hovind 2006, for example." Synthesis. I'm going to sit out for awhile JoshuaZ. I think we need to get some political scientists, historians, sociologists, or disinterested parties to comment. Regarding talk origins, using them as a source to enumerate creationist claims needs to be disclosed, as there is a conflict of interest. Just like using the National Rifle Association advocacy pamphlet on gun control would require a disclosure in an article on the right to bear arms controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I came here based on a request of comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and read most of the article. My impression is that it is POV towards the "evolution"-side of the debate. I can point specifically to "However, these ideas were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, suggesting it too could change, and thus were rejected.[14] Some progress began to be made in the middle of the nineteenth century towards acceptance,[15] but...". The word "progress" clearly implies a POV. I cannot find anything else that I can point to like that but overall it seems clear that the author's sympathies lie with the scientists. (see Raul's Razor #13). As far as the use of these sources go, it is hard to see if they are being misused without seeing how they are used. Can you please add to the chart the sentence that used that footnote? Jon513 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that the "progress" was toward "acceptance", meaning that the idea began to become accepted, progress is the perfect word, given that the meaning is to "step toward, step forward (in direction)". Would you prefer regress?
The use of the word progress does not inherently imply anything positive. We can just as easily note that the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 and progressed to other areas under Spanish control, including South and Central American colonies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one can be perfectly NPOV when in this controversy Evolution has science and the preponderance of rational thought behind it, whereas Creationism requires a belief in a supernatural being directing things. Orangemarlin 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jim on the matter of the word "progress"- however, I've modified the wording in a way that hopefully avoids the issue. If there are any other matters of phrasing that concern you please point them out. However, keep in mind that the undue weight clause of NPOV gives us little actual leeway beyond such phrasing issues. JoshuaZ 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Continuing onwards, the Hovind citation seems to be more of an issue of poor phrasing in the footnote than any synthesis, the source is simply pointing to what a major proponent of one side says the controversy is about (something which to some extent someone one either "side" would be a reliable source for). In any event, it shouldn't be hard to find other sources that make the same statement. Improb, the comparison you make between gun-control and this and your statement that we need to have "political scientists, historians, sociologists" to comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding. There is a difference between scientific and political disputes and Wikipedia policy (especially the undue weight clause) acknowledges it. (I suggest you read the RfAr on pseudoscience especially the decision for more information about this). The bottom line is that while Wikipedia is not written from an SPOV, policy requires that we make clear what is considered pseudoscience, make clear what the scientific consensus is on any issue, and give weight accordingly. JoshuaZ 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, as the first two sources are provided to delineate the extent of the controversy, it is hardly surprising that they are "parties to the controversy." They were both provided as evidence of what was being argued about not for the contents of their arguments. To consider this to be problematical is simply to grossly misunderstand the intent of the citation rules. Hrafn42 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the new wording, although I think the change is a case of catering to the LCD. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote [1]. This is original research. Yes, it is an "example", but how do we know it is representative? We don't. The contributor says it is representative (no offense to the well meaning contributor). Hence, original reserach. This could be rectified by citing a NPOV RS that cites Kent Hovind. Merely citing talk origins making mention of Kent Hovind is not good enough, because talk origins could be selecting Kent Hovind as an easy to knock down straw man, not because he is actually important to the controversy. It would be better to cite a different creationist organization saying that Kent Hovind is important than to cite talk origins. But it would be best to cite a NPOV RS mentioning Kent's challange, and then adding the exisiting challenge. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that I consider the questions over this footnote to be representative of some wider issues in referencing articles such as this one, I'd like to go into them at some length:
  • Kent Hovind, is a prominent Creationist (probably on approximately the same level of prominence as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, Henry Morris of ICR & Duane Gish). As such and unless the viewpoint can be shown to differ from that of other prominent Creationists on the issue at hand, he can be taken as "representative."
  • The extent of the controversy that the editor was using Horvind in order to delineate is a fairly standard Creationist one (I've seen similar in numerous places over the years). As such it is a very ordinary claim and should not require extraordinary substantiation.
  • Kent Horvind only has any credibility at all in Creationist (and the supporting Religious Right) circles (something that is true for most Creationists). As such, NPOV references to him will be scarce, making finding one that has him saying exactly what he says on his own website virtually impossible.
  • Creationists tend to be fairly egotistical, clannish and fratricidal. It would be highly unusual for them to praise those belonging to a different organisation, let alone a different 'clan' of Creationism (although they tend to be fulsome in praise of those within their own organisation).
In concluding, I think you have to take into account the realities of the dynamics of a controversy in attempting to document it. To be blunt, if the Creation-Evolution controversy was conducted solely through NPOV & reliable avenues, the Creationist side of it would disappear entirely, and the Evolutionary side of it would disappear back into the Ivory Towers of academia, conducted in journals that, however NPOV & reliable, are generally inaccessible to the wider Wikipedia-editing public. Hrafn42 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote [3]. The Myers science blog is use to justify the other four primary sources. Why are these important? Because the contributor who added them thought they were important. Again, it would be better to find a NPOV RS that makes mentions of these sources, and then cite them. As it is now, original research. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote [87]. Original research because no secondary source is making mention of this Ken Ham article. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply fixing these problems is not what I am looking for in the RFC. Rather, I am trying to seek guidance and groundrules on the "correct" usage of primary sources. Once that ground rule is established (I think it is, but apparently not), then we can go through the article and fix the incorrect use of primary sources. "See Raul's Razor #13", as well as No original research ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php you'll see that it's actually a long list of further links, in other words, it's not a primary source in its own right, but a collection of links to about 50 strong, reliable sources. Adam Cuerden talk 02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, articles published in journals are not primary sources. ~ UBeR 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, ImprobabilityDrive, I think you might be misinterpreting or misapplying WP guidelines on NPOV. We are required to present sources in a neutral manner; we are not required to find neutral sources. In an article that documents a debate or controversy, this is particularly important, since often the (decidedly non-neutral) statements of the interested parties are the bread and butter of our source material. Of course it would be great to have a large number of quality, reliable, neutral secondary sources which interpret, validate, explain, and put in context the claims made by the primary sources, but unless you can point to some that we've missed, it's difficult to move forward in a productive fashion. SheffieldSteel 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, we are not required to find neutral sources. We are required to find reliable sources, as you and others have so articulately stated. When using primary reliable sources we required to do so with care (this is official policy). And due to strawman, original research, reliability, and other concerns, I think relying on primary or secondary partisan sources summarizing the opposing viewpoint is problematic. See my strawman arguments below. Also, I do think you would agree that netural reliable third party sources are prized more than non-neutral first or second party reliable sources. This may not be policy, but it should be a guideline crossed over with the utmost care, do you not agree? ImprobabilityDrive 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to offer the following perspective relating both to the particular disagreement that sparked this issue, and also to the wider issue:

Humphreys (2005) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Contrary to his hopes, the publications of ICR, CRS and AiG have earned no respect in the scientific community. Authentic science journals are no more likely to accept a critique of his Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Humphreys et al., 2004) than a rebuttal of the astrology columns and Big Foot articles in the National Enquirer. Also, before Dr. Humphreys screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice. He needs to openly and completely publish his work and conclusions in a full article in a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal (such as Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta or American Mineralogist). Peer-review documents don't include a brief abstract in EOS and YEC publications that are edited by RATE members and other YECs, who are more than willing to accept manuscripts that invoke magic to "explain away" scientific problems and questions. It.s obvious from Dr. Humphreys. publication record on this topic (i.e., Humphreys et al., 2003a,b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004) that he has no real interest in fully presenting his ideas for critical scrutiny from some of the world.s authorities on zircon and helium chemistry. So, if Dr. Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his .accelerated radioactive decay. process, honestly recognize and correct his numerous mistakes, and publish what's left in an authentic peer-reviewed science journal.

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D (Geology) [4]

The problem we have is that the Creationist claims are never published in peer-reviewed journals, so responses to them are likewise rarely published in such journals. The responses therefore tend to come in science-partisanship sites (such as talk.origins) and science blogs (such as Pharyngula). The choices before us therefore seem to be:

  • to allow important aspects of a controversy to go undocumented;
  • to allow the Creationist side to be presented unrebutted (thus severely violating WP:Undue Weight); or
  • allowing science-partisanship sites and science blogs as references for these rebuttals.

Hrafn42 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To comment on your choices. If a third party commentator or source (such as a journalist, political scientist, documentarian, etc.) has not commented on it, the importance of a particular aspect has not been established, and its inclusion on wikipedia is a violation of OR policy. That a science partisanship site or science blog refutes a creationist argument doesn't establish that the creationist, his or her arguement, or its rebuttal are noteworthy to the topic at hand. In debates, parties have been known to refute not the most difficult or well stated position of their opponent, but the most preposterous or ineloquently composed assertion.
Even scientists and their supporters are capable of committing egregious logical fallacies, more so on science-partisanship sites and science blogs than in peer reviewed journals. This is not to say that science-partisanship sites and science blogs cannot be used, but they are best used as a backup source. (E.g., a New York Times article on the Creation-evolution controversy mentions a rebuttal on a scientist's blog...in this case, site both the New York Times and the science blog, where the New York Times establishes not only the notability of the creationist, but the scientist, her blog entry, and her rebuttal).
Your second choice is a false choice because the same rules apply to creationists and their claims as apply to those who refute creationists.
Your third choice is actually not in dispute, if what is being rebutted has been mentioned by a commentator or political researcher, and/or if the rebuttal is presented with due attention to the following:


Which is official wikipedia policy. Also, that creationist assertions and their rebuttals are rarely published in peer reviewed journals is not a problem. Such items could be (and are) published in popular magazines, newspapers, PBS documentaries, text and other non-fiction books, and other places where controversial topics are explored by third parties. In closing, not to ignore all of your best points, Kevin R. Henke's explaination of the problem sounds reasonable, and it does make the task of rebutting creationist claims more difficult. But I do want to remind you again that this article is the "creation-evolution controversy" and not "science wins in the creation-evolution controversy" article. Our task, in my opinion, is to describe the controversy using reliable sources in a NPOV manner, not to refute creationist claims. If a noteworthy creationist claim has been refuted, and the claim and its refutation has been commented on by a reliable third party, by all means, the importance of the creationist, his or her claim, the scientists, and his or her rebuttal have been established, and mention in this article would be entirely appropriate, citing, along with the reliable third party, links to the original claim and the original rebuttal. ImprobabilityDrive 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes & Odd Nature's revert

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • There had been long standing concern about this article, to the extent that there was a short-lived attempt to get it deleted, and many of the paragraphs were tagged for WP:NPOV & lack of clarity.
  • Additionally, there was an opinion expressed that it gave to much weight to the Creationist perspective, e.g.:

The trouble was that a lot of sections read something like:



Creationists claim that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, and furthermore that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Scientists disagree.

You can see the problem. Adam Cuerden talk 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • At this stage I suggested a new introduction, which was throughly discussed.
  • I also suggested that a tighter policy with regards to WP:Undue Weight was needed.
  • There was a further suggestion that everything after the 'History' section should be deleted.
  • I responded by suggesting that if this occurred, then a new structure needed to be put in place to avoid old bad habits. I later proposed a specific structure, which I implemented.
  • In implementing this new structure, I noted considerable overlap with Objections to evolution in the some of the pre-existing sections, which I attempted to minimise (as discussed above).
  • There has been a disagreement over the 'Nuclear Physics' section, but we are close to a consensus on this.

The results of all this discussion & work went out the window when Odd Nature decided to revert back to the old, heavily-problematical, article. Hrafn42 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not support Odd Nature's revert. Looks like his revert came in at a time when others were gun shy to undo his well meaning but ill timed revert. ImprobabilityDrive 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Biology stub

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that somebody has deleted the stub Biology Subsection in the Disputes relating to science section. I included this Subsection because disputes relating to Evolutionary Biology are the largest and most important scientific disputes in the controversy. I left it as a stub, because it is an area that is too large, complex and just plain messy for me, with my limited expertise, to do justice to.

My intention is to restore the stub with a short, one paragraph overview. Hrafn42 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Sternberg

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments3 people in discussion

ImprobabilityDrive wrote a hopelessly POV section on Sternberg, presenting uncritically the pro-ID (and thus pro-pseudo-science) side e.g. Meyer, Sternberg, Souder's partisan and unofficial report. The Biological Society of Washington, the Smithsonian, and the wider scientific community's views are completely unrepresented. I have therefore replaced this section with the Intro section for the main Sternberg peer review controversy article. I would strongly advise any editor contemplating adding to this section read that article first. Hrafn42 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material)"

I have read them.

Neither Meyer, Sternberg, nor Souder's (not the USHRCGR's) report are credible. I'm familiar with all three. Sternberg has been caught in numerous misrepresentations relating to this issue. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute, an organisation with a long history of dishonesty and of attempting to spin people as victimised pro-ID martyrs. Souder has documented ties to the Discovery Institute. Hrafn42 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sternberg peer review controversy article needs work too, but I can only be in one place at one time. While the content of what some of these sources say may be disputed by some, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Consequently, if it can be verified that Sternberg said something, it doesn't matter if what he says is true or not. On the other hand, you are free to add verifiable (not necessarily true) material of notables who assert that Sternberg et al are not speaking the truth. ImprobabilityDrive 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would consider the Sternberg peer review controversy article to be in a lot better state in terms of POV & Undue Weight that your own unabashedly Creationist-POV section. As it is the main article I would suggest that it is more appropriate to hash out any perceived problems with it first. Hrafn42 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider the subject more important to the Creation-evolution controversy. However, after I am done I will certainly consider (and probably will) go over there to improve that article as well. No wikipedia policy that I am aware of says that I must take previous wikipedia articles as tertiary sources in lieu of outside verifiable and reliable sources. ImprobabilityDrive 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that the section makes no mention of Sternberg's ties to Creationist groups, including his strong ties to ID. Hrafn42 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that his connections to Creationist groups, as well as his responses, has been addressed. I am not sure it is relevant, since government employees are allowed to be affiliated with such groups, are not required to provide an explanation for their personal religious or political beliefs (and whether or not Sternberg is in fact either a creationist and/or IDer is, as far as I know, not known; only his associations are known and at least some of his explanations have been reported.) Religious or political affiliations asside, Sternberg clearly has scientific credentials as well, and has, according to published accounts by third parties, suffered at the hands of zealous senior scientists at the Smithsonian (marriage dissolved, professional reputation assailed, etc.). ImprobabilityDrive 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sternberg is no martyr suffering at the hands of "zealous senior scientists", rather he is a lying sack of fecal matter whose credentials are shoddy at best. Casting him in the role of martyr does a disservice to every human with a functioning intellect.
Your point regarding government employees makes no sense. Try it again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV & other violations

"...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." This is Sternberg's POV stated as fact. IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF WP:NPOV!

The full sentence now: "Richard Sternberg was the managing editor of the publication, and asserts that he had the article peer-reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biology who were "teaching at well-known institutions." cited. ImprobabilityDrive 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Retaliations ensued." Again, Sternberg's POV stated as fact.

Umn, that sentence is cited by the USHRCGR Staff Report, not Sternbergs. I'll try to reword the sentence (it is too short anyway.) 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"The office of special council determined that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment and demotion at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)."

No such determination was made, as the OSC (which is highly politicised, and headed by a known culture warrior, who is himself under investigation) never had even the semblance of jurisdiction. All that was produced was a very one-sided "pre-closure letter." Hrafn42 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence was cited to a journalist working at a notable newspaper. I'll double check to make sure that I summarized accurately. You also left out a subsequent sentence that states the Office of Special council ultimately did not have jurisdiction. "However, the office of special council could take no action because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian." Also cited. ImprobabilityDrive 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Sternberg "states" things whereas the journal's publisher merely "claims" things. Another NPOV bias, particularly given that the publisher is a more credible source than Sternberg. Hrafn42 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll address this. ImprobabilityDrive 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Errors in this section

"...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." As the article was in fact about Palaeontology (specifically the Cambrian explosion), "scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions" are not relevant. It should be noted that neither Meyer nor Sternberg have any experience in Palaeontology, nor was the journal in any way related to this field. This should tell you something about Meyer's and Sternberg's honesty and credibility. Hrafn42 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you the full quote: "Richard Sternberg was the managing editor of the publication, and asserts that he had the article peer-reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biology who were "teaching at well-known institutions." This is cited. Again, see The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
But his assertion is demonstrably false on this point. Therefore presenting it unrebutted is a clear violation of WP:Undue Weight. Hrafn42 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition to being false, it is so vague as to be meaningless twaddle that seeks to ofuscate rather than clarify. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some argue that in order to be scientifically credible, a theory must first be published in a peer reviewed journal.[44] Since Meyer's theories on intelligent design had not previously been published in a peer reviewed journal, it was clear that Meyers's subject was pseudoscience. Therefore, concern among biologists errupted that Richard Sternberg had allowed an article by a proponent of pseduoscience to be published in a peer reviewed journal."

Cited. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with this paragraph is that Meyer's article was not about his "theories on intelligent design" -- it was an anti-evolution review article about the Cambrian Explosion. Hrafn42 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if you find a notable source making this assertion, it should be included. I don't think wikipedia will allow us to cite ourselves, though:) ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the Meyer article? It makes ubiquitous references to the Cambrian explosion & related matters (e.g. "body plans"), but states no positive 'theory of Intelligent Design' (which makes your implication that it does, Original Research). Hrafn42 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a reference for you, the introduction to Meyer's own paper:

In order to perform this analysis, and to make it relevant and tractable to systematists and paleontologists, this paper will examine a paradigmatic example of the origin of biological form and information during the history of life: the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian, many novel animal forms and body plans (representing new phyla, subphyla and classes) arose in a geologically brief period of time. The following information-based analysis of the Cambrian explosion will support the claim of recent authors such as Muller and Newman that the mechanism of selection and genetic mutation does not constitute an adequate causal explanation of the origination of biological form in the higher taxonomic groups. It will also suggest the need to explore other possible causal factors for the origin of form and information during the evolution of life and will examine some other possibilities that have been proposed.

...hence my questioning whether you'd read the thing. Hrafn42 07:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"# USHRCGR, United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform (2006-12-11), Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit The Demotion And Harassment Of Scientist Skeptical Of Darwinian Evolution Staff Report Prepared For The Hon. Mark Souder Chairman, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources, souder.house.gov Mark Sounder's house.gov website Retrieved on 2007-04-27"

Let me correct you. USHRCGR, United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform (2006-12-11), Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit The Demotion And Harassment Of Scientist Skeptical Of Darwinian Evolution Staff Report Prepared For The Hon. Mark Souder Chairman, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources, souder.house.gov Mark Sounder's
I added bold for emphasis. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact not an official USHRCGR (as can be seen from the fact that it is not in the database of congressional reports) but merely a 'staff report' prepared for Souder. This is also why it is on Souder's webpage, not the committee's. Hrafn42 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is identified as a staff report in the reference (see above). It also has an official seal on the report. But if you have a notable RS contradicting the seal on the report, let's include that too. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn42, let's work together on this. I will try to address your concerns as you express them. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A government insider's advice: beware reports such as this; they are generated for political rather than legitimate purposes as is evinced by the purple prose title. In addition, staff reports are developed in response to a specific set of criteria defined by the congressperson. For example, if I say, "I want a report on Global Warming being invented by liberal scientists", the title will be, "Global Warming: the Impact of Progressive Political Ideology on the Development of the Global Warming Theory". Get the point? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed references

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Below is a list of references I removed from the article as they were not (it seemed, based on my text searches) cited in the article. I am including them here in case a mistake was made, or in case somebody wants to use them. Some of these references seem to be very high quality references. ImprobabilityDrive 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Aviezer
|Given = Nathan
|Year = 1990
|Title = In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
|Publisher = Ktav Pub Inc.
|ID = ISBN 0881253286
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Bates
|Given = Stephen
|Year = 2006
|Date = [[2006-03-21]]
|Title = Archbishop: Stop Teaching Creationism
|Journal = The Guardian
|Publisher = Guardian News and Media Limited
|URL = http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-14]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = BBC
|Given = BBC
|Year = 2006
|Date = 2006-03-21
|Title = Fears over teaching creationism
|Journal = [[BBC]]
|Publisher = http://news.bbc.co.uk
|URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4828238.stm
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-14]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = CISE
|Given = Committe for Integrity in Science Education
|Year = 1989
date=February 1989 <br><nowiki>|Title = Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy: A view from the American Scientific Affliation
|Publisher = American Scientific Affiliation
|ID = ISBN 1881479005
|Pages = 64
}} on-line link to condensed version retrieved on [[2007-02-02]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Dawkins
|Given = Richard
|Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
|Year = 2006
|Title = [[The God Delusion]]
|Publisher = Bantam Books
|ID = ISBN 0-618-68000-4
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Dennett
|Given = Daniel
|Authorlink = Daniel Dennett
|Year = 1995
|Title = Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
|Publisher = Simon & Schuster
|ID = ISBN 978-0684802909
|Pages = 592
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Engber
|Given = Daniel
|Authorlink = Daniel Engber
|Year = 2005
|Date = [[2005-05-10]]
|Title = Creationism vs. Intelligent Design: Is there a difference?
|Publisher = Slate / Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive
|URL = http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-29]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Faid
|Given = Robert W.
|Authorlink = Robert W. Faid
|Year = 1991
|Title = A Scientific Approach to Christianity
|Publisher = New Leaf Press (AR)
|ID = ISBN 0-89221-186-5
|Pages = 196
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = GCAG
|Given = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
|Authorlink = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
|Year = 1977
|Date = 1977-08-17
|Title = The Doctrine of Creation
|publisher = Gospel Publishing House
|URL = http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4177_creation.pdf
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-14]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Ghedotti
|Given = Michael J.
|Year = 2006
|Date = [[2006-03-11]]
|Title = Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School
|Publisher = regis.edu
|URL = http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm
}} Retrieved on [[2007-02-05]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Hayward
|Given = James L.
|Year = 1998
|Title = The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography
|Publisher = Scarecrow Press/Salem Press
|Pages = 253
|ID = ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|last = Hennigan
|first = Tom
|title = An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes
|journal = Creation Research Society Quarterly
|pages = 153-160
|year = 2005
|date = December 2005
|url = http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/CRSQ%2012-05%20Snakes%20article.pdf
}}Retrieved on [[2007-01-20]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname1 = Huxley
|Given1 = Thomas H.
|Authorlink1 = Thomas Huxley
|Surname2 = Huxley
|Given2 = Leonard
|Authorlink2 = Leonard Huxley (writer)
|Year = 1975
|Title = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley
|Volume = 1
|URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084
|Publisher = Ams Pr Inc
|ID = ISBN 0404149804
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-16]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Morris
|Given = Henry M.
|Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
|Year = 2001
|Title = Back to Genesis: How Not to Defend Evolution
|Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
|URL = http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-20]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Myers
|Given = PZ
|Authorlink = PZ Myers
|Year = 2006
|date = [[2006-06-18]]
|Title = Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?
|Publisher = scienceblogs.com
|URL = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
}} Retrieved on [[2006-11-18]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Nelkin
|Given = Dorothy
|Authorlink = Dorothy Nelkin
|Year = 1982
|Title = The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools
|Publisher = Norton
|Pages = 242
|ID = ISBN 0393016358
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = NSTA
|Given = National Science Teachers Association
|Authorlink = National Science Teachers Association
|Year = 2003
|Title = NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
|publisher = NSTA
|URL = http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-14]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Ross
|Given = Hugh
|Authorlink = Hugh Ross (creationist)
|Year = 1994
|Title = Creation and Time : a Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy
|Publisher = NavPress
|Pages = 187
|ID = ISBN 0891097767
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = SBC
|Given = Southern Baptist Convention
|Authorlink = Southern Baptist Convention
|Year = 1982
|Date = June, 1982
|Title = Resolution On Scientific Creationism
|Journal = SBC Resolutions
|Publisher = Southern Baptist Convention
|URL = http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967
}}Retrieved on [[2007-01-22]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Schadewald
|Given = Robert
|Year = 1986
|Title = Scientific Creationism and Error
|Journal = Creation/Evolution
|Volume = 6(1)
|Pages = 1-9
}} As reprinted at talkorigins.org Retrieved on [[2007-01-23]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Scott
|Given = Eugenie C.
|Authorlink = Eugenie C. Scott
|Publisher = National Center for Science Education
|Year = 2000
|Title = The Creation/Evolution Continuum
|URL = http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
}} Retrieved on [[2007-02-01]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Theobald
|Given = Douglas
|Publisher = TalkOrigins Archive Foundation
|Year = 2006
|Title = 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|Edition = 2.87
|URL = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-14]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = WELS
|Given = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|Authorlink = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|Year = 1999
|Title = This We Believe A Statement of Belief of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
|Publisher = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|URL = http://www.wels.net/s3/uploaded/4421/eng.pdf
}}Retrieved on [[2007-01-22]]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname1 = Winston
|Given1 = Robert
|Authorlink1 = Robert Winston
|Year = 2006
|Title = When science meets God
|Journal = [[BBC]]
|Publisher = http://www.bbc.co.uk
|URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4488328.stm
}} Retrieved on [[2007-15-01]]

See below. How were they not used? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


They were or appeared to be orphaned references. ImprobabilityDrive 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source to validate Hrafn42's reading of Meyer's paper

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
"It was in fact a review article about the Cambrian Explosion<ref>{{harvnb|Meyers|2004|p=213-239}}</ref>, an area of study in Palaeontology, a field wholly unrelated to the journal's subject matter (Taxonomy), or to Sternberg's (molecular evolution and systems science), Meyer's (Philosophy of Science) or the purported reviewers' fields of expertise."

Could you find another source, other than the paper, to substantiate your reading of Meyer's paper. Wikipedia policy states:


Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This reading is ubiquitous, as a quick Google search for the terms ""The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" and "cambrian explosion" will demonstrate to you. Examples include: [5], [6], [7] (the last points out that it is just a condensed version of a prior book chapter entitled 'The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang'). Hrafn42 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll let you replace the {{fact}}s with the references you have come up with to support the reading. It seems to me to be an article requiring specialist knowledge to parse. ImprobabilityDrive 08:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OSC 'Report'

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The OSC 'Report' is in fact only a pre-closure letter, as can be seen by reading the text of the document itself on Sternberg's own site[8]. It is also significant that the only explicit "determination" this letter actually makes is to close the investigation. All the rest is just weightless assertion. Hrafn42 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you know that this letter is the report mentioned in the cited article? We should add your assertion that it is merely a closing letter and not a report, as soon as we can find a RS. I'll do some searching. ImprobabilityDrive 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We have:
  • The fact that this letter was written 14 days before the Washington Post article was published (at which time the Smithsonian had not yet seen the 'report' so it must have been newly written).
  • The fact that both the letter and the 'report' were both written by James McVay.
  • The fact that if a more authoritative report had been published, Sternberg would most certainly have had access to it and published it on his own website.
  • The fact that the Souder report (which had access to all documents) referenced no OSC 'report' beyond the letter, which it goes on to refer to as a "report."
  • The fact that no other 'report' has been seen by anybody.
  • The fact that the pre-closure letter explicitly states that the investigation will be taken no further, which means that no further report would be warranted.
From this we can conclude that the Washington Post was being rather loose with the term "report."
The Washington Post was clearly basing their article mostly on the pro-Sternberg side, as the Smithsonian had not read the details of the allegations contained in the letter, so were limited as to the degree to which they could respond. Hrafn42 11:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning, sound or not, is not sufficient to identify the report as a letter personally addressed to Sternberg on wikipedia. If you had a reliable reference quoting McVay identifying the report as such a letter, that would be an unassailable reference worthy of inclusion. Of course, other sources may also be sufficient under wikipedia guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability. But, like your suppositions, one might also suppose that they are different entities; that the actual report was not released (but leaked to the three media outlets) due to privacy concerns for all involved; etc. Using your conjectures might be sufficient as a basis for inclusion on a science blog, but would violate OR, POV, synthesis, and so on and so forth here on wikipedia. ImprobabilityDrive 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg's skepticism

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

ImprobabilityDrive is overplaying Sternberg's scepticism. What the Washington Post article actually says is:

An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.



This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."

This only says that he claims to be "critical" of Baraminology, and that he is not a "Creationist" -- but then many ID-advocates deny that ID is Creationism.

This means that presenting this in context (and apparent rebuttal to) the pro-ID bias implication of Sternberg's membership of ISCID is at best misleading, and at worst factually incorrect. Hrafn42 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not factually incorrect, but I will work to provide context in an effort to address your concerns. If an ID-advocate denies that ID is creationism, I don't get that part. Are you saying that those who identify themselves as IDers do not get to define what they mean when they use the term? ImprobabilityDrive 08:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If they're being deceptive, no they don't get to define themselves. If you read the Intelligent design discussions, this is ongoing now. Federal courts, the Wedge document and Teach the controversy all clearly show that Intelligent design is religion wrapped around pseudoscience. So, in this case, NPOV would indicate that ID is called what it is: Creationism. I'll use this example: Bill Gates cannot write an article describing the perfect security of Windows XP. We can quote him saying that. We can laugh about it. But the NPOV would be to source the wide wealth of documents indicating otherwise. Orangemarlin 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The words "creationism" and even "religion" have developed very bad connotations. They also have important legal implications which creationists and religious people want to avoid. Therefore, these fundamentalist true believers frantically try to pass themselves off as something else by using a different name. However, this strategy turns out to bite them in the butt every time since they really are nothing more than the same backwards anti-reason anti-thought intolerant slack-jawed yokels and dufuses dressed up in cheap suits.--Filll 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for following up with questions on the creationist statement, which was curious to me (as well as the responses). ImprobabilityDrive 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV forking

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

Why are we even discussing this extensive and problematic section on the Sternberg controversy when a separate article on that subject already exists? The entry on this page should be a summary of the existing article, and if ImprobabilityDrive feels the need to make improvements, they should be made on the main article. Attempting to write what amounts to a separate article on this page is tantamount to creating a POV fork. SheffieldSteel 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is discouraging that you feel this way. With respect, it is not necessary for the wikipedia article you mention to be addressed before this article is addressed. As a contributor, I am a volunteer, and am working to improve this article. The sources I am using are being used within wikipedia guidelines, and, from a conservative newspaper article to a normally liberal NPR, the section lines up with the references. As I previously stated, I may very well go work on the other article, as it needs to be balanced. But I have decided to include a relevant and recent chapter in the Creation-evolution controversy, using reliable sources with sentences that are verifiable against those sources. ImprobabilityDrive 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very glad that you are willing to volunteer to improve aricles. However, I feel that your efforts are misguided. Whenever you see a link that says, "Main article:X" you should be aware that the section in question ought only to be a summary of article X's contents. Making large numbers of changes which are disputed, to what ought to be a simple summary, only makes matters worse - see WP:POVFORK for more on this. SheffieldSteel 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that {{main}} is not the correct template to use in this context. Please use {{further}}, {{details}} or {{seealso}}. {{main}} should only appear at the top of sub-articles. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant all instances. It's done now. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to reduce the size of this section. It takes up so much of the article, you'd think that this was the most important item ever to happen to this controversy. If someone wants to read more, go to the original section. This is in agreement with SheffieldSteel. Orangemarlin 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The size is appropriate, the pov now looks very problematic. For one thing it has the Post's "lashed out at Sternberg as... a "closet Bible thumper." but makes no mention of Sternberg's creationist connections or the point that he'd resigned in October 2003 and this was his last issue. It also fails to note that the publisher repudiated the article..... dave souza, talk 18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Good points. Since I deleted it, let me try to make it read better and more WP:NPOV. My bad. Orangemarlin 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


I will be restoring it. Another wikipedia article on the peer review controversy is not a good source, at least not as good as a newspaper article and an NPR documentary. I will visit the other article later. The NPR story backs up the "lashed out at Sternberg as... a "closet Bible thumper." The point that it was his last issue is interesting, you could simply add that. ImprobabilityDrive 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Planning on starting an edit war? Not a wise move. I'd suggest you try to build consensus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Planning on starting an edit war? Not a wise move." Actually, I am not planning on starting an edit war. My edits were subjected to persistent and disruptive editing as I was adding the section. I would have appreciated your (or anybody's) vigilance then.
ImprobabilityDrive will probably not form a consensus based on past behavior. His MO is to revert away, then editors clean up later. Orangemarlin 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have me confused with FeloniousMonk. Note the carelessness with which contributions were reverted. ImprobabilityDrive 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OM, see your talk page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. I made several good contributions to this article. It took a lot of time and effort to identify the uncited references, for example. And, contrary to others opinions, the section I was working on (with the sometimes difficult to deal with but othertimes helpful input from a person who had very strong views on the matter) was not POV. It was accurate. It was verificable. It needed some work, but work was being done. Please do not attack me personally. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew that, but hope springs infernal. Seems like we have a problem to address then. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack me. I am doing good work here. ImprobabilityDrive 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and multiple (two so far) news accounts that do not portray a group of scientists positively is not POV, even though it seems that way to scientists. Furthermore, the other article was not part of the creation-evolution controversy. If there is a requirement that in describing an episode one must use what was written in an article, I would appreciate it. I will be posting more about my recent POV tag. ImprobabilityDrive 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Statements of fact are not attacks. If you hang around here long, you will find that I am quite blunt. I see a developing problem with your edits: deal with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The references section uses the Harvard citation methods. I personally don't like them, because the references go from place to place, so I would like to change them all to the Wikipedia version. Anyone object? Orangemarlin 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you -- convert away. Also, if you could check on ImprobabilityDrive's deletion of several sources it'd be greatly appreciated. Given that the references are established in the body of the text, I fail to see how they weren't used. Also, could you let us know the status on these removals? -- if they were legitimate references, they should not have been removed and we have the begininings of an RfC for POV and other issues here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Is there a page the recommends the alternative you desire? The problem with that is you end up with effusive citations. ImprobabilityDrive 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Given that the references are established in the body of the text, I fail to see how they weren't used." Sloppy editors probably forgot to delete them as they were removing material. This probably occurred during edits. When removing material, contributors should remember (IMHO) to remove references that are no longer used. You're welcome, by the way, for my careful work in identifying these references, cutting them, and pasting them here in a format that makes it easy to reuse if necessary. I know some of you appreciate it. ImprobabilityDrive 01:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith with your edits of references, but please note that your aggressive editing tends to bring out suspicion from several editors. My point with Harvard references is that you have to click three times to reach the right reference. With other wiki citations, usually in the form of cite web or cite journal, you click on the reference number, it takes you to the reference, and you can choose to get more information at that point. In addition, Harvard citations tend to end up being long lists. Orangemarlin 06:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You must have went to yale:) Your point about the clicks is well taken, but it has advantages, too, especially if the same source is cited in multiple locations, or if multiple sources are combined. Both have their drawbacks, especially when it comes to editing previously cited work. I would rather call my editing bold than aggressive. But I do want to form consensus. ImprobabilityDrive 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review allegations OR.

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The NPR program is not even cited (for some reason) on the article you cut and paste from. It might be because that was an article on an alleged peer review controversy, whereas this article is about the creation-evolution controversy.

I would like to invite others to listen to the NPR radio documentary.

Also, the issue was not peer review. The first sentence in the section as it was modified states: "This controversy arose out of a conflict over whether an article that has been represented as giving support to the controversial concept of intelligent design was properly peer reviewed before being published in a scientific journal."

But this is not supported by the Publishers statement: "[Richard Sternberg]. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor."

Note, the editorial practices were typical, not universal. The paper was not alleged to not have been peer reviewed, it was alleged to have gone through the review process without review by any associate editor. Sternberg asserts that it was peer reviewed, and provided details. I provided a sentence and Sternberg's statement. I had a cited sentence to this effect, which was deleted for some reason. To say that this is a peer review controversy is POV, short of a citation. ImprobabilityDrive 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, spoken words are poor reference sources. Besides, you are expending an inordinate amount of energy on this guy. I wonder why? Orangemarlin 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible OR

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article in question requires specialist knowledge to understand and characterize. Consequently, I moved the above sentence here pending a citation from a reliable source of the sentence. However, even if it is cited, I am not certain how it relates to the Creation-Evolution controversy; the publisher disavowed publication, and it's not like the IDers can claim a victory here. That is to say, it appears to be a POV sentence as well (toward discrediting the author of the paper?). ImprobabilityDrive 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Specialist knowledge? In what field? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive defense of opening sentence

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The journal alleged that Richard Sternberg did not include an associate editor in the peer review process, as was "typical".Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington This is citable. Consquently, I changed the opening sentence to reflect the Journal's publishers position about Sternberg's violations. I am very willing to collaborate with others who disagree with this change. ImprobabilityDrive 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the cause of your preoccupation with Sternberg? It seems a little odd that you focused in on this section and have been hyperactively editing it, seeking to lessen the dishonest nature of Sternmberg's actions, painting him as a martyr*, and attempting to shift the blame for Sternberg's problems on others.
*On a cross of his own making, no less, upon which he willfully ascended and nailed himself to. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive defense over deletion of extended Publisher's official statement

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I also removed the extended quote of the Publisher's official statement because it is condensed in the opening statement, with a citation to the publisher's official statement. Some had complained that the section was too long, so this is a way to be more concise. ImprobabilityDrive 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the removal of Sterberg's apologetics on peer-review

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I also removed discussion of the Sterberg's peer-review apologetics, because they are a red herring to the Creation-evolution controversy article. Specifically, the Publisher has not commented publically (listen to NPR radio documentary) beyond stating that Sternberg did not seek the collaboration of an associate editor in the peer review process, as is typical for the publication. Consequently, any apologetics or polemics regarding who, what, when, and how it was peer-reviewed is best left to the Sterberg peer review controversy article on wikipedia. It only clouds the affair with minutia in this article, and adds length without content relevant to the creation-evolution controversy. Again, if you disagree, I am willing to collaborate. Just point me to a reference that shows the peer-review issue is relevant to the Creation-evolution controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess, and you're spending an inordinate amount of time worried about this bozo. Who cares? Your energy makes it appear that he matters. He doesn't. He lied, and he's discredited. After that, I'm not sure he deserves much more ridicule or attention. In the greater context of this controversy, this guy rates just half of his allotted 15 minutes of fame. Orangemarlin 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't care that much. However, it is a recent episode in the creation-evolution controversy. He does not matter. The controversy and treatment does. BTW, where was he discredited? I mean, other than allegations that he is a closet creationist (e.g., any independant findings that he violated Journal policy.). Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Discredited in the sense of being a science editor. He embarrassed the Washington Society of whatever and the Smithsonian. He got a bunch of scientists all ticked off. And in the end the notability of this bozo is hardly worth a paragraph. Kitzmiller, Cobb County and several other court decisions are worth more IMHO. You seem obsessed with this guy (I note your request for merger/move/something). Really, he's not worth this much trouble.Orangemarlin 09:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Hmn. I became interested in the other article after other contributors asked me to. I took them up on their offer. Your loathing of the man is duly noted. ImprobabilityDrive 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What's not to loathe? Besides, I doubt that loathing has anything to do with OM's edits: from what I've seen, facts matter. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Sternberg's 'demotion'

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The article cites the Washington Post article as the source for Sternberg's alleged demotion (citing the OSC report/pre-disclosure letter as its ultimate source). However I can find nothing in either the WP article or the letter to confirm this.

My memory is that this allegation was actually made in the Souder Report, and that it refers to the fact that when his original appointment as a RA expired, he was offered reappointment as a 'Research Collaborator' (as Research Associates require a sponsor, and Sternberg's original sponsor died shortly after the start of his original appointment, leaving him with the Head of Department, Coddington, as sponsor for the remainder of his appointment). This occurred well after the WP article. I would therefore suggest that the allegation of Sternberg's demotion be either deleted or correctly sourced. Hrafn42 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This might argue for rewording and rebuttal, if you can find a source that disputes the demotion. Barring that, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is to say, a contributor's failing to substantiate a claim made in an otherwise reliable source is not grounds, IMHO, for rewording or rebutting. ImprobabilityDrive 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me make this clear: it would appear that the claim that Sternberg was demoted (whether highly exaggerated or not) is incorrectly sourced -- in that it is sourced to the WP article, but that article appears to make no mention of it (and my memory is that the allegation relates to events long after the WP article was written, so it could not have been in that article). If you think I am mistaken, then by all means quote the paragraph of the WP article that does mention it. If not, it needs to be resourced or deleted. Hrafn42 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, after reviewing the references again at Hrafn42's prompting, I made some changes. Hrafn42's recollection that the demotion finding was actually made in the Sounder report is correct. Consequently, I made the following changes: 1. I changed report to letter, because a careful reading of the Newspaper article makes it clear that the "report" was the pre-closing letter, and the NPR article only refers to a letter. (This is response to another dispute over the use of the term report to describe the USOSC pre-closure letter). 2. I removed the word "demotion", since it was not in the NPR or Washington Times articles. -- I also added another Eugene Scott quote defending the Smithsonian, for balance.
I did not include the Smithsonian refusal to talk with the press, even though it was mentioned in the NPR article. The reason I did not is because the refusal is prejudicial, and, because, I estimate, the Smithsonian was advised by their legal counsel not to make any comments. While this is my view, I want to make it clear in case others disagree with this assessment.
Thanks Hrafn42 for subjecting the section to this scrutiny, and for being patient. I think it has improved as a result of your patient scrutiny. ImprobabilityDrive 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal essay?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Copied from the creation-evolution article. Is this supposed to be there? ImprobabilityDrive 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. As it clearly contravenes WP:NOR and has been moved here for discussion, I've now deleted it from the article. It's one-sided, lacks sources, particularly for the conclusions, and is weasel-worded. ... dave souza, talk 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words, it's slop. The last sentence is so asinine as to represent a new low in bogus correlations. The rest just needs to be taken out and shot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Jim, the horse is dead. Stop kicking it. :) ImprobabilityDrive 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ya never know when it might be resurrected. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Creationism from a philosphy of science point of view

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What I miss in the article is a discussion of the philosophical argument against the scientific nature of creationism. As I have heard it formulated in its most concise form, the problem with creationism is that, whereas it is science's job to sort the facts into a logical whole and try to find an explanation for them, creationism starts with the explanation and then tries to find the facts that support the explanation. This is a fundamentally different approach and as such does not fall within the definition of what most scientists would recognise as science.
It should be noted that the argument here goes to method, not the content of the matter. --Recoloniser 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a section on falsifiability in this article. If you feel that it is inadequate, be bold and improve it. ImprobabilityDrive 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I will, when I can get the references together, which is proving a bit difficult at the moment (any hints anyone?). Also, I'm not sure that this entirely falls within the scope of the falsifiability issue. I agree the two are related, but the criticism I am referring to is even more fundamental: starting with the answer and then finding the facts to suit it is not considered science. In fact it may be argued that, if you indulge in this, you never intended to do science in the first place. In the case of (non-)falsifiability you may have started out attempting to do science, but you didn't succeed.
--Recoloniser 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg is *out*, Dover and Kansas are *in*

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I've replaced the Sternberg peer review controversy section with more notable and influential controversies that were glaringly inadequately covered in this article. Sternberg is not a notable controversy in the creation-evolution debate byt any measure compared to Epperson v. Arkansas (needs to be added), McLean v. Arkansas (needs to be added), Edwards v. Aguillard (needs to be added), the Dover trial (covered) and the Kansas evolution hearings (covered). All of these were woefully under-covered here and significant and influential on the current landscape. Sternberg is not even a footnote in comparison. FeloniousMonk 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Aside from your opinion, do you have any independant support for your position, say, like a Washington Times article or an NPR report? ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's much common knowledge and common sense, things anyone who hopes to make signficant contributions to this and related articles are expected to know. Here's a couple sources:
There's another dozen I have if you need them. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the Sternberg peer review was in fact placed in the context of a creation-evolution controversy by NPR. As a side note, an edit not only blanked a section but added a few more. I inadvertantly deleted the additional content when I restored the blanked section. I have since restored the two new sections, including hidden comments, as can be seen by this diff. ImprobabilityDrive 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding your other response (we had an edit conflict) I did not mean to imply that the court cases were not important. This article is not just about court cases and/or science v. pseudo-science. I meant, do you have something to back up that the Sternberg peer review controversy is not important. I think it is important, but what really matters is that NPR and the Washington Post and possibly the Wallstreet journal deemed it important. It's not as though the sources for (and that provide context too) the Sternberg affair are the ilk of the OC Weekly. ImprobabilityDrive 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've removed it again: The Sternberg peer review controversy is a vanishingly minor issue in comparison to the trials. There's simply no comparison. Furthermore that it's is even controversy is a particular pov, that of the Discovery Institute and aligned ID proponents, who promote and inflate it as an example of the alleged "persecution" of ID proponents. This is a well documented Discovery Institute campaign. Taken with the fact that absolutely no non-partisan source supports their version of events (as presented in the section phrasing ID has been insisting on) and those sources that do are not just partisan, but overwhelmingly partisan, there's zero reason to help them with their spin campaign by repeating it for them here. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please seek consensus. "Furthermore that it's is even controversy is a particular pov, that of the Discovery Institute and aligned ID proponents, who promote and inflate it as an example of the alleged "persecution" of ID proponents." NPR is working for the Discovery Institute? Really, I need help here, how can I dispute the blanking? There is no section left to tag, and I do dispute the blanking and seek consensus. ImprobabilityDrive 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The Sternberg issue is worth a mention and a link to the article that covers it. Anything more than that would be giving it undue weight, I think. SheffieldSteel 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg is a totally minor character involved in completely minor controversy. FM was right, there's no comparison to the impact of the trials, so he needs to stay out. Anything else is giving him and those IDers who use him as an example undue weight. Odd nature 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd is correct here. Sternberg simply didn't get as much coverage in the media nor has it been discussed nearly as much. This judgement makes a lot of sense. FM mae a good call here. JoshuaZ 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

I added the tag over a dispute regarding the blanking of a Sternberg affair, on the grounds, in the words of the blanking contributor, that the idea that there is even a controversy is not-notable. This assertion contradicts the NPR reference. "Furthermore that it's is even controversy is a particular pov, that of the Discovery Institute and aligned ID proponents, who promote and inflate it as an example of the alleged "persecution" of ID proponents." NPR is not, as far as I know, part of the Discovery Institute, nor is NPR, as far as I know, a proponent of ID, yet NPR has a story placing the Sternberg affair in the context of a creation-evolution controversy. It should be noted that the contributor who claims it's even controversy is the Intelligent Design POV is the same contributor who created an article on wikipedia about the Sternberg peer review controversy. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions.

I dispute the blanking of the section in this article based on the NPR program, which clearly and independantly identifies the Sternberg peer review controversy in the context of the ongoing creation-evolution controversy. Failing to present this aspect of the creation-evolution controversy results in an article that is less NPOV. ImprobabilityDrive 06:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Was the Sternberg incident a notable one in the controversy? It certainly got far less coverage than either Dover or Kansas Board of Education (the two recent issues that have retained specific coverage), and probably less so than the Cobb case. I suspect Sternberg is largely unheard of outside the specialist ID & scientific blogospheres. Hrafn42 06:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Was the Sternberg incident a notable one in the controversy?" Yes, see NPR. "I suspect Sternberg is largely unheard of outside the specialist ID & scientific blogospheres." NPR is not a blogosphere. Court cases are covering seperation of church and state issues. Sternberg covers freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the emotional and political tensions that arise in the creation-evolution controversy, as well as, frankly, some disreputable intriques in the world of self-proclaimed evolutionary defenders (and no, I am not talking about the evolutionary POV pushers on wikipedia here.) ImprobabilityDrive 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Notable=anything that has ever been on NPR? I don't think so. My impression was that the incident only got a handful of mentions outside the blogosphere (hence "largely" there). Sternberg had nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of association (neither of which were curtailed). It was about editorial malfeasance and conflict of interest. Sternberg acted grossly dishonourably and grossly dishonestly. His actions, completely unsurprisingly, lead to considerable anger, consternation, scepticism, and questions as to his motivations, in the scientific community, which he then dishonestly attempted to portray as persecution. More dishonest spin, from a movement that spends its entire time engaging in political spin rather than scientific research. And by the way, I am not a "evolutionary POV pusher," I am a Science-pusher, because both ID and Creationism generally is fundamentally Anti-Science (in a very broad sense). Hrafn42 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's even worse than that. Deliberately attempting to blur the values, the methods, the distinctions between science and religion, does a great dis-service to both. The view that science needs to be taught in a radically different fashion, because scientists are too dogmatic and faith-based - whereas only the religious people are truly being scientific - leaves us with what? A next generation educated with pseudo-science, and a pseudo-religion that's no longer based on faith.
I guess I'm saying I'm opposed to ID on scientific and religious grounds. Hope that's okay. SheffieldSteel 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates were completely unjustified considering that the subsection that you insisted on reinserting is not worthy of coverage. Remove the section and the need for the tags evaporates, which is what I've done. Odd nature 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the section had grown to a ridiculous length given its negligible value to the article.
The section has now been removed in less than 24 hours by two editors, I really don't expect to see it reinserted absent reaching consensus on the talk page (i.e., this page). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Although it's kind of a sad story that DI proponents had to be so underhanded, it is not a notable story. Sure, if it had happened to Nature or Science or the Journal of Evolution, then we'd have a story. But it happened to a small local scientific society journal. Sternberg is not Dawkins (now if he suddenly became a proponent of DI, we'd really have a story). And it really isn't that relevant to the article. A couple of sentences maybe. MAYBE. Not a whole section. ImprobabilityDrive, I think you've failed to get a lot of support on this issue. Still wonder why it's so significant to you? Orangemarlin 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Sternberg is significant in the context of the detail of ID, but a very minor issue in the overview of the wider controversy and should not be given undue weight. A brief mention and link in the ID context would be appropriate, a section getting into the arguments is excessive. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OM, please quit trolling. ImprobabilityDrive 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Would you like to apologize for that rude comment? Let me define a troll, in the sense of this article, for you: "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding." I am a regular editor for this article, have been for many months. I do not understand your obsession with this minor character. Numerous other editors do not understand it either. Dave Souza stated exactly the same thing as I did. You may place your apology on here and on my talk page. Orangemarlin 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, actually, it is significant in my opinion. But I am not arguing for things just because I have an opinion about them. Rather, this was covered by the normally liberal NPR and the normally liberal Washington Times. Could anybody, anybody at all, provide a source, aside from TalkOrigins or PandasThumb, that states the Smithsonian/Sternberg affair was unnotable? ImprobabilityDrive 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm astounded by the sheer implausibility of anyone arguing that a minor figure's mishandling of the peer review process of a very minor journal to promote his like-minded pals and his subsequent baseless claims of persecution being touted as evidence by same like-minded pals is on par with the rulings of multiple US Supreme Court cases. I'm beginning to suspect that either someone is promoting a particular viewpoint or we're being trolled. Do we have anything other than ImprobabilityDrive's (ID no less) opinion that the Sternberg mess is as significant as Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, Kitzmiller v. Dover and the Kansas evolution hearings? The problem is, you see, neither the Washington Times nor the NPR sources he touts speak to the significance of the Sternberg teapot tempest in context or relative to any other events. Just being mentioned in a source or described is not an indicator of significance relative to other events. Odd nature 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, the other issues are much more notable by one simple test- the amount of press coverage. Sternberg had little press coverage compared to Kitzmiller or Epperson or Edwards. JoshuaZ 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you around JoshuaZ! I've been saying this for a week. I don't get why we're spending time on this rather sad character in this story. Orangemarlin 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
ImprobabilityDrive: your claim of notability rests on it having been covered by two news sources? This is a ridiculously permissive definition of 'notable.' Under this definition the slightest burp in the wider Creation-evolution controversy is 'notable.' Oh, and it was the Washington Post (the Washington Times is a partisan conservative rag founded by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the the Moonies). Hrafn42 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any disinterested sources to assert the peer review process was mishandled, other than the already included, rather weak, but interested assertion that it was not done as was "typical"? This is not a tempest in a science blog. I know of one opinion piece (WSJ), and two other mainstream accounts that say this was a big deal. The fact that science and pseudo-science blogs want to spin it is interesting, but don't let that get in the way of an objective NPOV presentation. Those court cases are significant, as court cases. The Smithsonian affair is not a court case, but then again, the article is not exclusively about court cases. This smells like spin control. I would understand if I were sourcing ID blogs or something. Have some intellectual honesty, please. Are you saying NPR is under the control of DI? ImprobabilityDrive 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It was an article on the Cambrian Explosion, part of Palaeontology, written by a non-Palaeontologist, solely edited by a non-Palaeontologist (making a mockery of his claim to be the "best qualified among the editors"), reviewed by non-Palaeontologists and published in a non-Palaeontological journal (in the editor's final issue). Further in its brief conclusion, it gave support for the pseudoscience of ID, in spite of the fact that (1) it was only a review article, so contained no new data on which to base this presumptuous conclusion, and (2) the fact that ID was given no explicit mention anywhere else in the article: i.e. the conclusion was plucked out of mid air. I think that nobody, other than a blinkered Creationist, could read these facts and not draw the conclusion that there was something very wrong about the editorial process. But the fact of the matter is that almost nobody, other than Creationists and Science-boosters, have even heard of this incident, so to expect an informed opinion on the editorial process from outside these circles is ridiculous.
The WSJ piece was written by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer. I would give more credibility to a random mental hospital inmate than to that bunch of professional liars. And no, the article is not exclusively about court cases: it contains the Kansas Board of Education saga - a notable (in that it generated hundreds of articles) non-court-case recent part of the controversy. Contrast its coverage with the paucity of articles on Sternberg. Hrafn42 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you owe an apology to random mental hospital inmates for comparing them to a DI writer.Orangemarlin 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So ImprobabilityDrive cites as evidence of the notability of Sternberg's teapot tempest a source WSJ op-ed piece written by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer? Now not only do we know he's promoting their POV, but we have evidence of it. Note that the paper Sternberg published outside of normal peer review process that was the source of his entire professional meltdown that ImprobabilityDrive wants to cover here was written by Discovery Institute Program Director Stephen C Meyer. Oh, what a tangled web we weave. Odd nature 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Do we have any disinterested sources to assert the peer review process was mishandled..." Yes, Ronald Jenner, writing in the The Palaeontological Association Newsletter, clearly thinks so.[9] Hrafn42 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've placed a warning template at User talk:ImprobabilityDrive for making the same edits three times on the Sternberg section. Orangemarlin 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Notice

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

It is becoming increasingly strange that NPOV content cited by NPOV RS are being reverted on the basis of notability.

Consequently, I would like to point out that if it is ever determined that anybody involved with the Smithsonian or National Center for Science Education, or is working as a sockpuppet of Ms. Scott without disclosing it, I would advise you to disclose any Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest now. ImprobabilityDrive 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you brought up the issue of sock puppets, I'll ask again: Have you had a previous account on wikipedia? Arbustoo 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest. How about you? SheffieldSteel 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I admit that I don't know Mr. Sternberg, anyone that knows Mr. Sternberg, or anyone who writes about Mr. Sternberg. However, I have visited the Smithsonian on two occasions. I used to listen to NPR, but ever since Bob Edwards moved to XM Radio, I don't listen any more. I read the Washington POST online almost every morning, but usually just political news. Orangemarlin 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL. That's pretty good. I've been to both D.C. and Seattle (home of intelligent design), so perhaps we should all recuse ourselves. Oh, I've been called out publicly by the DI's founder and Dembski on their respective blogs, so I'd better take a back seat here I suppose... Right. Anyone who plays the COI card better be super-squeaky clean on that front themselves; without giving away the show we have the means to determine real COIs to a large extent, and anyone misrepresenting themselves in a content dispute while trying to drive off established contributors is going to burn through a lot of community goodwill. We've already caught the Discovery Institute with their hand in the cookie jar a number of times here, as well as IDEA clubs and Dembski's blog. So far the DI's opposition has 1) caused no issues, 2) either edited under their real names, disclosed their relationships, or 3) limited themselves to talk pages. FeloniousMonk 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, what do I have to do to get recognized by DI and their blogs. Raul got it the other day. You got it. I'm feeling envious. Orangemarlin 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive: your rantings are becoming increasingly paranoid. The Smithsonian has studiously avoided commenting on this absurd fantasy, and the NCSE has only commented very briefly upon it (when Sternberg's right-wing boosters attempted to drag them into it). Why on earth would any sane person think that they'd now go to the trouble of creating sockpuppets to influence it? Hrafn42 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I certainly hope you're right. It is difficult for me to understand why a contribution that lines up in tone with the two main neutral RS's it cites is considered POV. All I get back is opinion, no counter cites to support the opinion. It certainly smells like interested spin control. Yet, other contributors rely on POV interested sources as primary sources, and those contributions are not challanged. What is your explanation? SheffieldSteel, I do not have a conflict of interest. I am a renegade, not affiliated with any organization. I did not even go to WorldNetDaily or any creationist/ID blogs until I was mostly done with my contribution. I avoid POV sources (even though that is not required). There is an imbalance, though, in that interested science blogs are considered reliable while interested pseudoscience blogs are not. I say, in the context of this article, throw them both out except to bolster NPOV RS. Otherwise, admins are stacking the deck and allowing OR/synthesis as well as interested parties in a socio-political controversy to act in their own interest as experts. In my contribution, for example, I don't think Ms. Scott should have been quoted unless a NPOV RS quoted her. If NPR and the WT hadn't quoted her, her comments should not be included, as it would be OR (I would be ascribing importance to Ms. Scott's comments). Other POV contributors just act like they don't understand these points, and instead assume that I am trying to push a DI POV, when I am trying to point the mainstream POV (as expressed by NPR and WT). You might argue that NPR cherry picked Ms. Scott's remarks for sensationalism, but that is not my problem. NPR is a RS, and, exceeding wikipedia standards, widely considered by many wikipedians, an NPOV RS. ImprobabilityDrive 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
ImprobabilityDrive: neither the WP (not the WT) nor the NPR article is particularly neutral, in that both rely almost totally on Sternberg's and the OSC's unsubstantiated accusations, with only slight contrary opinions from the NCSE, who were themselves only peripherally involved, and the Smithsonian were refusing comment. No attempt appears to have been made to seek the input of other parties to the incident (e.g. the Biological Society of Washington or Coddington) or for a more neutral scientific perspective. Neither article is good journalism.
"What is your explanation?" That the ID political lobby managed to fool the Washington Post and the NPR into believing their well-worn mountain out of a molehill strategy. That does not however make the incident 'notable.' Sternberg is a contemptible little swine, who very briefly got a lot of people angry at him, for perfectly legitimate reasons. But mere legitimate anger at contemptible behaviour is not grounds for notability. Hrafn42 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This entire section is clearly badgering and intimidation meant to use FUD to gain the upper hand here. Without offering any reason why he suspects a COI violation, ID's "warning" is completely baseless. Trying to drive away productive contributors is ill-advised and a hallmark of disruptive editors. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A search of the archives illustrates that allegations of COI with regard to Ms. Scott are not so far fetched, after all.

"Holy cow you got an email from the boss. This is THE famous Dr. Scott herself, I bet. Impressive. You must have pull or something. Actually from my conversations with them, I believe they want to help us write the best possible articles on these topics."--Filll 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that the editor who made that claim was StudyAndBeWise who is permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. Orangemarlin 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
More spin. I see two claims. One is that Filll has had, if I understand it correctly, conversations with the National Center for Science Education, and the other is that they want to help. I assume in good faith, however, that Filll meant that the NCSE wanted to help by making their material available, and not to imply a conflict of interest. However, I still wonder about the COI issues with regard to other users blanking the content I added to the article on the flimsy grounds, IMHO, that the controversy is not notable, "that there is a controversy is POV", and that, by implication, only court cases are notable to the recent creation-evolution controversy--all not backed up by RS, simple assertion only. ImprobabilityDrive 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, next steps?

Latest comment: 17 years ago29 comments11 people in discussion

Despite his best efforts to tar others with various brushes of misdeeds, violating NPOV, being vandals, etc., the only behavioral issues here I've seen have had their source in ImprobabilityDrive, here and elsewhere. That being the case, I see that he's solidly met all 4 of the 4 criteria to be considered a disruptive editor. To gauge how best to proceed here, what are the feelings of regular contributors here about his behavior? Is there consensus that we should follow WP:DE? FeloniousMonk 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I lost interest in good faith with this editor when it was clear he was engaging in an edit war, and making false accusations against other editors. Send him away with his sockpuppets. Orangemarlin 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Maybe RfC? This behavior is disruptive and bizarre. A new editor knowing intricate policies while declining to respond to having previous accounts.
At the same time this editor wants cited material out of the article s/he inserted uncited controversial material. Arbustoo 05:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
RfC would probably be the best method as this has gone beyond a simple content dispute. I've tried explaining "proper" methods to I-drive, but I can't say that my advice had been followed. Also, I-drive's obsession with Sternberg is a bit troubling and issues relating to WP:COI may be present. As for socks, we'll need to ask for a sock-check. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a sock check is warranted in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He's gone beyond disruptive. A topic ban per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would be a fair response I think. Odd nature 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin already warned him about WP:3RR on his Talk page. I reported him at WP:AN/3RR for five reverts of this article on 1 May, but this was the response:

User appears to have stopped after the first clear warning about 3RR (Guettarda's comment doesn't really make it clear that 3 reverts is a rule), so no block for now. Update if user continues to edit war. Heimstern Läufer 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Making a convincing case for disruptive editing requires a collection of evidence. A user conduct RFC would be a reasonable way to do that. Just be sure that if he is charged with 'editing against consensus' that there is a well-defined consensus to be against. (Some Talk pages are rather meandering, and don't have an obvious consensus). Another idea is to add a few more bits of info to the already-filed RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, since it seems to be still waiting for action. EdJohnston 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How about slapping him upside his head like you did to me for a lot less serious infraction. The lack of equal treatment around her can be a bit annoying. Orangemarlin 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You were about to be blocked for personal attacks; I had hoped that was a public service. I'm not an administrator anyway. EdJohnston 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Against User:Gnixon? You must be kidding. If that's what it takes to get blocked, then really, this place is ridiculous. I've had to put with anti-semitic and uncivil commentary from another editor, and there was no "almost" block of him. He's been put in his place several times, and continues his behavior. This editor above is causing all kinds of problems, and files an ANI against another editor here. What I said was a mere frustration to what Gnixon was doing, and you think I deserved a block? Wow, that's harsh. And sorry, I did think you were admin. You guys don't exactly wear uniforms!!! Orangemarlin 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If he did file an ANI against a fellow editor, and if the ANI was obviously bogus, then just add that fact at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive. I perceive that administrators don't like it when people mock the policies. EdJohnston 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. please continue to scrutinize User:ImprobabilityDrive for 3RR violations, and file them when you see them. It's worth the effort. Since he has already received a 3RR warning, next time won't be a freebie. EdJohnston 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comment to him - ImprobabilityDrive was the one who raised the issue of the 3RR first, on my talk page:

I reverted him once, and he reverted me. There isn't much left to tag since he blanked the entire section. If I continue to revert him he will win on the revert rule.

So I'd say he was pretty well aware of the 3rr. Guettarda 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote: "So I'd say he was pretty well aware of the 3rr." Actually, I was aware of it; however, I was unaware of one technicality. Specifically, that it is in a 24 hour period, and not a "day". I do apologize for violating the 3RRR rule. However, in my defense, I was trying to follow the advice you gave me (after I requested it) here. Specifically, you wrote: ImprobabilityDrive 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


So you see, Guettarda, I am surprised that it has come to this. Also, while people are talking, it appears, at least one 3 strike contributor on the 3RR rule is filing frivolous and apparantly retaliatory charges (see the article on LBU, which is a mess by wikipedia standards), as others goad him on. ImprobabilityDrive 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be my take. Amazing how fast these newbies learn, i'n'it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My fingers curl wickedly, my eyes glow as embers, and my evil smile reveals crooked teeth when I encounter such accomplished cynicism. :D Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor fellow. His account was only created on 20 April. Give the novice a break! EdJohnston 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless, as we suspect, the checkuser shows something else. Orangemarlin 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah right. As FM said ID strongly meets all four criteria of disruptive editing. In spades. Where was your concern for the community when he was edit warring and trying to drive off other, more productive and established editors? Me thinks your sudden appearance here and advocacy speaks volumes about where your real concern lies. Odd nature 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you referred to me as ImprobabilityDrive and not ID. My advocacy is for NPOV RS and notable (as measured by national press coverage, and not convulsions at evolution blogs) to be added to an article where it is entirely appropriate, and untirely unwanted for specious reasons, IMHO. ImprobabilityDrive 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that he filed an (ultimately unsuccessful) Disruptive Editing complaint against me early on (based on far less disruption than he has himself caused),[10] I do not think that he should be given much benefit of the doubt, as that action undercuts any claim of (newbie) ignorance, and as those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Hrafn42 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments, IMHO, shows that your interest here is retaliatory. Also, while FeloniousMonk did revert his initial warning to you, it seems to be after he determined the disruptive editing you were engaging was in fact likely to be sanctioned by the owners of this article. ImprobabilityDrive 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
ImprobabilityDrive: your opinions are by no means humble, nor in any way substantiated. I was not advocating any specific action ('retaliation') against you, merely pointing out information relevant to the decision-making process. Also your reading of FeloniousMonk's reasons for rescinding his warning are not supported by his stated reasons for doing so. This whole Persecution Complex thing is getting rather tiresome. Hrafn42 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You should add ID's retaliatory ANI to any list of charges in an RFC. Orangemarlin 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, pt 2

Sadly ImprobabilityDrive has once again dismissed the opinions of many editors here out of hand, going so far as to reintroduce a proposal already rejected by every established editor of this article: [11] This falls squarely in the realm of WP:DE which says a hallmark of disruptive editors vs. constructive editors is that the former "rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." and "is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." We've also seen here from ImprobabilityDrive tendentious use of sources, echoing "cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." Taken with his "campaigns to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles." and he's hit the WP:DE jackpot. Per comments above, a user conduct RFC is the next step. I'm too busy to pull the evidence together and write it myself, but I am able to endorse the basis of the dispute, and there are a number of other admins who've tried to reason with him who will as well if the group here or an individual here writes and posts it. Please let us know when it is up. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For interested parties I have opened an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that he's already been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a notorious abuser, I'm not sure if this is necessary any more. Hrafn42 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the block has been lifted due to lack of evidence he's agreed to be adopted for guidance on not causing disruption. The RfC appears premature, though it would be appropriate if there's any further problems. .. dave souza, talk 07:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To all those that are piling on

Moved to User:ImprobabilityDrive/Creation-Evolution.

Punctuation

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Having found errors in my punctuation, I've made this correction. My understanding is that the present block is in place because of a dispute unrelated to Creation-evolution controversy#Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin, but if anyone objects to this change I'll be happy to revert it. .. dave souza, talk 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And now, let's talk

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

This discussion has been moved to a subpage to allow for more fruitful discussions, as the proposal being made again has already been widely rejected by the community. You will find it here: /Sternberg dscussion. All further comments on Sternberg should be made there. Those that are left here can be moved there by any editor. FeloniousMonk 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the sockpuppet ID won't be bothering us any more (although a read of the list of sockpuppets for this editor is quite impressive, so I doubt we've seen the last of him), can we move on from the Sternberg controversy? IMHO, a couple of lines does it fine.Orangemarlin 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we even need a couple of lines, but, if you think it'll be of value, I won't object to putting it in. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we had a discussion above about the notability of this character. I think he's less notable than a 10th round draft pick of the Vancouver Canucks in the upcoming NHL draft. My sarcasm aside, JoshuaZ seemed to think he's slightly more notable, and I guess in the context of this controversy, he is a minor player. I still think it's quite telling of the Discovery Institute that they find a bit player to allow for the publication of a pro-ID article in an obscure science journal. That is probably the extent of the notability. Orangemarlin 16:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, can someone with very good skills in archiving, archive the contentious discussions of the banned editor vs. the world? Orangemarlin 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The archiving can wait a day or two -- the screeds present amusing reading (if one is masochist). At least the Canucks made the playoffs unlike the damnable Philadelphia Flyers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for not archiving yet... I would have missed what happened 8-| For the record, I was in favour of a short summary of the Sternberg peer review controversy article and a link, nothing more. I'm not too attached to that idea though; if you all think it really isn't that notable I will concur. SheffieldSteel 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with it appearing at all was it was the Smithsonian bit was always an inconsequential sideshow to the controversy described at Sternberg peer review controversy, it was never the main controversy. The peer review controversy had no significance outside of a very narrow context of the issue ID proponents claiming peer reviewed ID articles exist in proper scientific journals (a point resolved in the Dover trial - they don't).
BTW it's clear reading the sources provided at the Sternberg peer review controversy article that Sternberg and his Discovery Institute cronies and their flunkies Souder and Santorum have inflated both Sternberg's role at the Smithsonian and the alleged discrimination he faced, finding Sternberg a useful martyr to hold up. Let's not help them. Odd nature 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of a short (1-2 sentence) mention of Sternberg + a link to the main article. Not because I consider the incident to have any inherent notability, but because it is the most frequently cited/hyped ID faux-martyrdom (e.g. here[12]), so it would be worth while having info debunking it reasonably accessible. Hrafn42 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This guy is a martyr for the ID folks? They need to screen their martyrs better. I agree with the short (like two or three sentences) statement about this thing. But really, he has definitely gone over his 15 minutes of fame with our discussion alone. Orangemarlin 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the general level of honesty and integrity shown by the ID crowd, it'd be expecting too much for them to screen their martyrs for it. Hrafn42 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rejection_of_evolution_by_religious_groups/Archive_17&oldid=1140125142"