Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

Campaign classification

I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section. Hrafn42 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further about it, with a little bit of work, the current 'Campaigns' section could be split up into:

• Goals
• Freedom of speech campaigns
• Persecution campaigns
• Petition campaigns
• Criticism

...with each of the new sections providing fertile ground for expansion. Hrafn42 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans

The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation. Hrafn42 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Completely rewritten, so now moot. Hrafn42 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" a DI ID campaign?

They spend an enormous amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles. Hrafn42 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example: Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried? Hrafn42 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Indirect method example

Odd Nature is emphatically in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:

An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the National Academy of Sciences as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" . Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science Discovery Institute, 2006. [citation de-refed to be readable]

I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have an opinion? Hrafn42 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The full paragraph from Alberts is:[1]

For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.

(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)

Reasons why this isn't a good example:

1. the example is only marginally relevant to "the indirect method" which is described above in the section as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" (i.e. Teach the Controversy);
2. to call it an "incomplete quote" is misleading -- the quote is not out of context, if framed differently -- a reframing that they're quite open about; and
3. it is a very obscure example based on a document written by one of the DI's least notable members -- Casey Luskin. As far as I can see, this document has disappeared without leaving any trace, and is referenced nowhere else except through this article and web.archive.org.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking the logs, I was reminded that one of the reasons I originally deleted this "example" was that it is OR -- we only have the primary source of the 'Teaching Guide' itself and no secondary source saying that it is an "incomplete quote" (or a problematical quote in any other way) or that it is an example of the "indirect method" (which it seems to be only a rather tangential example of). I have therefore tagged it as OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Explicit justification for this view is contained at WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The disputed paragraph is clearly "interpretation" of the DI document (the primary source), without any citation to a secondary source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A further comment: the phrase "incomplete quotation" would appear to be a redundancy, all quotations are incomplete, as otherwise they would be a verbatim recitation of the entire document (book, article, etc). The incompleteness is only problematical when it results in the quotation being out-of-context, or some other form of misrepresentation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that the 'Teaching Guide' neither mentions "teaching the controversy" nor introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory". It does not deal with the "evidence, both for and against, evolution" of the indirect method, but with the rival views of the definition, and philosophy, of science underlying mainstream Science (i.e. Methodological Naturalism) & ID (i.e. 'Theistic Realism'). But why am I writing all this? People are just going to revert, revert, revert, without bothering to read it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

DI "Media Complaints Division"?

Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or otherwise)? Hrafn42 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're not talking to yourself. I notice that DI "hides" things just to prevent problems. I've never used the wayback things. Maybe a quick google search?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Already tried Google -- numerous mentions by the pro-Science side, but none that I can find from the DI. It is possible that the phrase was simply the pro-Sciencers calling a spade a spade, but I have the nagging suspicion that the DI might have used that (or a very similar) title early on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that, or something close to it. That makes me wonder if the Panda's Thumb continues to refer to the DI named "Evolution News and Views" as the "Media Complaints Division". Kind of like how they do the DI's "Center for Renewal of Science and Culture". But you need to way back machine and I've nver used it. Angry Christian (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything, but then Wayback is generally of most use when you know specifically where to look (and preferably when) as well as what you are looking for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The DI's 'Media Complaints Division' is what people call [2]. Odd nature (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But "people" doesn't include the DI who call it "Evolution News and Views" with their usual misdirection, since they really mean "Anti-evolution News and Views", unless of course their banner is meant to indicate it's about the evolution of the DI. Which is unlikely, as they still appear to be fossilised. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just wondering if the DI had, in a brief lapse of honesty, originally called a spade a spade, and then tried to erase the fact (which they have done from time to time). But it appears that the descriptor is purely a pro-Science invention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable campaigns in the lead

The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.

In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in Free Speech on Evolution appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Stand Up For Science was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the Kansas evolution hearings, and has sunk without a trace. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity runs a very remote second to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Explore Evolution may eventually achieve notability as a textbook, however as a media campaign it has had negligible impact.

I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is not complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the highlights?

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my personal view:

• Definitely (received major press coverage, which tends to resurface periodically):
  • Teach the Controversy, and its slightly revamped/reworked successor Critical Analysis of Evolution
  • Kansas evolution hearings
  • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
  • Sternberg peer review controversy
  • A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
• Possibly (received some coverage, but have tended to peter out):
  • Guillermo Gonzalez
  • Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
• Not (ones that made little initial splash & have since sunk without a trace or been merged into other campaigns):
  • Free Speech on Evolution
  • Stand Up For Science

Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom petition

Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a Soviet and Eastern European Studies bachelor and an award-winning sport columnist who has opinions on everything (his own words), such a great source? Northfox (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the the bill is being sponsored by a retired dentist (Alan Hays) and a former English teacher who has been described as the "Tammy Faye Bakker of Tallahassee"[3] (Ronda Storms) and stumped for by a speech-writer turned actor (Ben Stein), I claim WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources. Unlike the claims of this bunch of snake-oil salesmen, Mayo's point actually has some logic to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for a separate article on 'Academic Freedom' campaign?

The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE here), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most notable DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading a bit further, I'm tending toward 'Academic freedom bills' (or similar) as the title, and the following major milestones:

• 2001: Santorum Amendment
• 2004-2006 Alabama Academic freedom bills
• 2008:
  • DI model Academic freedom bill
  • Florida bill

I'll have a go at getting a sandbox version going for people to look at. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rough draft is at . [Article is now 'live' -- see below] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did a head to head comparison between the DI model statute & one of the 2005 Alabama bills and, apart from some minor punctuation differences, I can't see any difference between them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) The 2006 Alabama bill is also virtually identical (only apparent difference is that it divides one section up into two). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the masses of input I've received on the topic, I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead & created it as a new article: Academic Freedom bills. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Notable campaigns" in the lead

• The following campaigns are claimed to be "notable": Free Speech on Evolution, Stand Up For Science, & Explore Evolution. As far as I can tell, all of these campaigns died an ignominious death in obscurity, having never made significant impact. Can anybody provide evidence (not bare assertions) that they were notable beyond the growing list of campaigns currently not mentioned in the lead?
• Currently missing from the lead are mentions of
  • 'Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics' (which featured in Weikart's From Darwin to Hitler, West's Darwin Day in America, Coral Ridge's Darwin's Deadly Legacy & in Expelled)
  • 'Campaigns claiming discrimination' (a perennial favourite, again featured in Expelled)
  • 'Academic freedom campaign' (which has spawned bills in seven states over the last four years)

I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and, more recently, to allow Critical Analysis of Evolution. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Stand Up For Science is officially dead, with its website redirecting to the 'Academic Freedom Petition'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and creationism

Does Wikipedia agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this?

For example,

In a video interview, Stephen Meyer said,

• Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. [4]

I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Wikipedia is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.

If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you present a WP:RS for this viewpoint (reliability would entail that i) the claim wasn't self-serving (ii) was made by somebody with some expertise in the matter who (iii) does not have a track record of dishonesty)? As it stands we have a wide range of WP:RSs stating that it is creationism, and none that it isn't -- so per WP:DUE, this is the viewpoint we present. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, how does your question relate to this article? There doesn't seem to be any assertion that ID is creationism, there's a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" which reports the denials and the majority view that it is creationism. . . dave souza, talk 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the Discovery Institute and its campaigns for Intelligent Design. And there is a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" (quotes included). The section quotes Judge Jones as saying, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory". This is a denial of the DI position. And this denial is implied to be correct in the article, using the phrase, "has been refuted both in court and academia". This is the assertion that ID is creationism that you said wasn't there.

Myer is not a WP:RS, so his views are irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, Hrafn mentioned the WP:DUE in a way that makes me wonder if he thinks policy requires us to omit any explanation of the D.I. denial. So I'm still wondering if it's okay to mention the D.I.'s own stand on the issue, even if most readers would dismiss it as self-serving. Meyer disagrees with the NCSE and with Judge Jones over whether ID is merely a relabeling. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll be able to hear a 2.5 minute interview in which Meyer elaborates his reasoning. Meyer argues that Creation begins with faith in God & Bible, which it uses to interpret nature. Meyer says (or at any rate claims in that interview) that ID begins by observing nature. Rather than stipulating that God is the Designer (as our friends the YEC's do), Meyer claims to be starting with observations of nature and inferring design. Or as I would put it if allowed to edit the article: Creationists begin with a theology that dogmatically insists that God created life. ID, in Meyer's view, begins with the observation that life appears to have been designed, and then argues that the appearance must be so. Meyer's view was rejected by the courts in Fitzmiller, with Judge Jones ruling that ID is simply a re-labeling of Creationism. I don't want to change the article from anti-ID to pro-ID. I just want to add a minority view which is relevant, because it is the view of the article primary subject. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New source

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:

• Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"

• Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator." The words are "strengths and weaknesses."

• Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

Odd nature (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another new source They're back!! Jewish Times Odd nature (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposing merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was not to merge. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Proposing merge. Since the Discovery Institute's main purpose is to promote "intelligent design", then there is no need for a separate article. It is like having an article on Communist Party's communist campaigns. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree: this topic is sufficiently cohesive and self-contained, and sufficiently well-sourced and notable that it can sustain its own article -- which gives a context as to how the campaigns fit together within the DI/IDM's overall strategy. Furthermore it does not appear to meet any of the "good reasons to merge" listed in WP:MERGE. Given the wide range of articles covering various aspects and (often mutually antagonistic) incarnations of 'the Communist Party' (Category:Communist parties has 20 subcategories, and I don't know how many articles in total -- Category:Communism has even more), I find your analogy less than compelling. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The good reason to merge is overlap. It's like having an article on Darwin's darwinism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Darwin's darwinism is a reasonable sub-article of Charles Darwin. Seriously, as sub-articles necessarily overlap with the main article, in which they are summarized, that "overlap" can not by itself be a reason for merging. Merzul (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact an article on "Darwinism" (Darwin's and Creationists'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree: – this article stands alone very well, and the DI was around for years before it took up ID. Last time I looked, it still had other campaigns or projects on the go. If you think the Cascadia Center for Regional Development focused on regional transportation, the Bioethics program, The Real Russia Project and The C. S. Lewis & Public Life program are ID campaigns, either you're misinformed or very good sources are needed. . . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This article is a separate topic, DI article is longish already. Odd nature (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Conceded per Dave souza. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing merging both Free Speech on Evolution and Stand Up For Science to this article. Neither campaign elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns and for the rejection of ID generally (rather than for the claims of these campaigns specifically) -- see their respective talkpages for more detailed discussion. Therefore both would be of questionable notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge both essentially per Hrafn. Particularly the Petition campaigns section could use the material, though the article as a whole is getting to splitting length. (from WP:ID) - Eldereft (cont.) 09:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why these two campaigns and not the many others that are linked? What makes these in particular mergable and not the rest? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: (i) this is essentially a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS question and therefore not particularly relevant. (ii) In any case, the answer to your question should be apparent from how I phrased this merge proposal: the other campaigns generally have "elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is [not] almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns" and have third-party sources that address "the claims of these campaigns specifically". They therefore (and unlike these two) (i) meet WP:NOTE & (ii) have non-overlapping third-party-sourcable material.

If you want to get further up to speed on this, I would suggest that you read the book Creationism's Trojan Horse and browse the National Center for Science Education's website. This talkpage is for discussing specific improvements (in this case this merger proposal) not the relative merits of all related articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that I've already covered this issue in #What are the highlights? above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, for notability reasons. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge both per Hrafn, leaving redirects which can be expanded into articles if the DI starts them up again and attracts sufficient attention for notability. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge based on Hrafn's response, I feel that there is no legitimate concern. By merging these, this removes the ability to correctly identify these as propaganda campaigns that are notable because they were exposed as being completely unscientific. By not having them as individual pages for each campaign, then someone would be receiving the fringe view that the DI institute is correct insofar as there is little information, therefore, little response. Condensing the information and placing it in one area hidden among context does a disservice to a reader, puts forth a misleading front, and allows a fringe view to get away without being exposed as a fringe view. It would violate the spirit and point of multiple guidelines and does a disservice to academia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima: you are incorrect in stating that these campaigns "are notable because they were exposed as being completely unscientific". This is not "based on" my response, but in direct contradiction to the facts I presented to you. These campaigns have not been "exposed" so much as completely ignored. Their articles contain no rebuttal that is specific to these campaigns. I see no reason why repeating a generic response to ID across multiple articles is a "service" to the reader who would be better served by seeing these obscure campaigns explicated by (not "hidden among") the context of the wider DI campaign strategy, in which they were unsuccessful, short-lived bit-players. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feb 2009 Zogby poll

propose the reinsertion of my text (deleted by Hrafn). It is not self-published. Zogby International is a reputed nonpartisan polling company, their analysis is sound. Hrafn, wrote in his revert 'there us [sic] no "scientific evidence against"' evolution. Well wikipedia is not here to report truth, only reliable information. And the question by Zogby had similar wording, and the pollsters responded to those questions, so be it. Northfox (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not only "propose" reinsertion of your text, you reinserted it without waiting for followup discussion. I reverted your insertion until at least some discussion of it takes place. It is surely legitimate to question whether these poll questions were well phrased. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourced and interpreted by the Disco Tute themselves, hence self published. As for teaching "scientific evidence against evolution", that would be a very short lesson. Of course the DI doubtless want classroom time devoted to pseudoscientific quote mining, as usual. . dave souza, talk 14:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We would likewise see a highly positive result in a poll on whether we should use cold fusion to solve our energy problems (should anybody bother to conduct one). Even beyond the WP:SELFPUB thing, a poll that is premised on an impossibility (or nullity if you prefer) is inherently unreliable/misleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

better sources: here, and here. Not selfpub. whatever the questions were, the poll was conducted and reported by reliable third party sources. That the outcome of the poll is not what you expect should not play a role in including in wikipedia.Northfox (talk)

and a WSJ reference for the 2009 poll here. I forgot to mention that my previous post contained resulst from two Zogby polls, one in 2006, referenced here and one from the recent 2009 poll here. Both should be mentioned in the wikiarticle. Northfox (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to the article appear to be one-sided, as does your interpretation of the sources. We'll stick with the original sources and text, thanks. Also, reading the Zogby article and related sources, it's pretty clear Zogby polls have an issue with bias. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FM, you mean something like this, (from the CNS article)? A large majority of Americans think biology teachers should teach Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution along with the scientific evidence against the theory, according to a poll by Zogby International. Thursday, Feb. 12, is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. The telephone survey of 1,053 likely voters by Zogby showed that 80 percent of Americans “agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.” Further, the poll showed that 78 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” That’s up from 69 percent from a 2006 poll. On a related note, only 14 percent agreed with the statement that teachers “should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it” – and that is down from 21 percent in 2006. The current poll, conducted Jan. 29-31, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 points. Please go ahead and phrase a paragraph about the poll(s). I am sure my version will be reverted immediately. Northfox (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Northfox: the poll itself is biased, being based upon a misrepresentation of the dispute, the claim that there is "scientific evidence against [evolution]". Were it presented (more accurately, if partisan for the other side) as 'religiously-motivated misrepresentations of evolution', I do not doubt that it would garner far lower support. That "Zogby International is a reputed nonpartisan polling company" is irrelevant, as the poll was commissioned by DI, contains the DI's biased wording, and is thus worthless. Additionally, I would point out that as "scientific evidence against [evolution]" does not exist, this poll and this entire thread has no relevance to this or any other article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research and personal opinions of one particular editor (or editors) should not prevent reliable source information from being included in a wikiarticle. Northfox (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(i) That there is no "scientific evidence against [evolution]" is not OR, but well cited on such articles as Objections to evolution and Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. (ii) A poll on the basis of a false premise is not reliable, irrespective of who conducted it. If you want to argue this further, then I would suggest you take it to WP:RS/N or WP:FRINGE/N, as you clearly have garnered no support whatsoever here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What we need to cautious about here and Northfox seems to have forgotten (and I know he is aware of having been at the ID article where this surfaced several years ago) is that Zogby International has run at least one poll on behalf of the Discovery Institute, and it was shown to be skewed to deliver a favorable result for them. We need to be particularly circumspect when it comes to Zogby polls that touch on religion. That, and science is never decided by popular opinion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Just out of interest, why are they so keen about teaching "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution"? Do they want children taught pangenesis instead of Mendelian genetics, or could it really be that their concern is about modern evolutionary theory, but they don't want to admit it.. Guess so. . dave souza, talk 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

re FeloniuosMonk. I am around wikipedia exactly two years. The other Zogby poll was 2006. Must have been another fox, or another poll (maybe the one about religiosity and crime??). And, I agree that science is not determined by public opinion (but also neither by courts, btw), but I just wanted to show that the DI campaign seems to have a big effect on the public. Thus I don't really understand Hrafns objections ( poll is nonsense because there is no evidence against evolution). I wanted to include the poll because it shows what the public thinks (not what the public's knowledge is about science or nonscience) about evolution teaching. We have no evidence if the Zogby data is skewed or not, so better not jump to conclusions. I propose an inclusion of the poll results along the following line of thought: a recent Zogby poll shows how much the public is influenced by the DI campaign, 70% of blah blah blah....this is an increase of xx% over ......etc etc etc. Northfox (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From the section you copy out above, this looks like original research: does a reliable third pary source say that it "shows how much the public is influenced by the DI campaign"? There are obvious problems with the question being skewed, as Hrafn indicates, so analysis by an informed reliable source would be useful, not just a news organisation passing on the DI's press release without serious scrutiny. . dave souza, talk 12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your being cautious, but isn't this double standard? Many statements from the NCSE and other very critical sites are copied without such a level of scrutiny. The Zogby poll has been reported in the WSJ, that should be enough serious reporting and reference. My wording above was just a proposal, open to discussion. But the poll results hould be mentioned IMHO. Northfox (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Northfox: the NCSE is made up of serious scientists, and is thus regarded as a WP:RS. The DI is made up of pseudoscientific cranks, and is thus regarded as a grossly unreliable source (for anything beyond their own views). No "double standard" just avoiding giving "equal validity" to their views. Your 'opinion' (i) goes against a clear consensus here & (ii) offers no reason why we should consider a poll conducted on the premise that "arguments against [evolution]" exist any less farcical than one premised on Russell's teapot, the invisible pink unicorn or the fairies at the bottom of the path. Unless you can come up with some compelling new reason for its inclusion, I will be archiving this thread shortly as, having run its course, further discussion is "not relevant to improving the article". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201001711/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521123102/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/ to http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6LZiqbyLh?url=http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html to http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210113446/http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php to http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207130846/http://www.evolutionnews.org:80/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html to http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214040619/http://scienceblogs.com:80/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php#more to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215205204/http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/ to http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729032153/http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm to http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212214558/http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf to http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether ID is creationism

Although it is generally accepted that ID is creationism, one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view:

• Ronald L. Numbers concludes that it is inaccurate to call it creationism—though it is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." Associated Press / Fayetteville Observer

I'd like to ask Dave whether this is a good enough reference. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Since Numbers' best-known book is called "The Creationists. From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design", which implies that ID is a form of creationism, I suspect that the quote is out of context. I have that book, and I have read it, but I do not recall his exact stance on that specific question. If others are not quicker than me, I will look it up: it is definitely a better source than a single sentence in a newspaper.

BTW, there are other sources on what Numbers thinks about ID, for instance this. Whether "ID is creationism" is one specific aspect, and the newspaper quote makes Numbers sound as if he were sympathetic to ID, which he is definitely not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the AP article is from 2002, before ID was prominent, and Numbers may have been explaining that ID isn't necessarily YEC. His 1992 book The Creationists didn't cover ID, the 2006 edition added two chapters on the topic and the subtitle "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design". . . dave souza, talk 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with newspaper reporting. Journalists like to spice up their stories, so that more people read them (and more eyes fall on the ads that pay their salaries). The issue is whether ID is

1. actually founded in a Creationist premise - and is therefore outside the realm of science, having presumed the existence of a Creator; or,
2. merely motivated by a desire to justify a Creationist perspective - by using scientific means to show that "intelligent" intervention has left evidence behind

I'd have to wade through Ron's book to find out what he thinks about that.

By the way, does the motivation of a scientist matter when we describe his work at Wikipedia? I mean, suppose - just suppose (I'm not accusing anyone) - that a particular scientist was advancing a purely materialist theory of human origins because he wanted to justify atheism. Would this (by itself) invalidate his work? Would it even by relevant? If so, who says so - and why? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ed, what matters is the clear majority view of third party expert opinion, which is that ID is creationism rebranded: in a cheap tuxedo, if you like. It's clear that ID proponentsists have yet to actually produce any scientific work or theory, instead producing a theological argument while sometimes pretending that The Designer ain't necessarily God. It's also clear that since the 1820s, or earlier, scientists have sought material explanations, whether or not they believed in God as a First Cause. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. If he only meant that ID ≠ YEC then the use of the quote in the article becomes questionable. Perhaps the distinction between Young Earth vs. Old Earth needs to be highlighted in certain articles (if not here). I think I've seen a tendency for ID opponents to lump all Creationists together, even though it only the (slightly) smaller half which says "less than 10,000 years ago" while the (somewhat) larger half says "it all happened as long ago as the scientists say."

Is the ID campaigns article the place to mention what proportion of ID supporters (or thought leaders) are YEC, Old-Earth, agnostic, or atheistic?

And what's the best way to point out the flaws in ID's claims of having produced scientific work? I mean, they say that ID makes testable predictions. So, shouldn't we describe these (so-called) predictions along with rebuttals showing either (1) they aren't testable (and are therefore just pseudoscience or (2) they have been tested and found false? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we are saying that ID = creationism. There is a clear affinity between different objections to evolutionary biology. They all tend to use variations of the same arguments, for example. While there are some supporters of ID who will go so far as to allow common descent of humans with chimps and other apes. Dobzhansky, in Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution refers to himself as a "creationist".

As far as "material explanations": Many scientists and philosophers of science would not insist on material explanations - they would rather say "physical" or "natural". Others would go further, and would accept "spiritual" or "supernatural" explanations, and would point out that ID does not offer any sort of explanations. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Creationism is a broad topic and the term has been contested, which is why Numbers may have been misconstrued by AP. Science has limitations, in that it can only deal with materially testable explanations, which can be physical or natural – the supernatural is immaterial, though if there are claims that it causes physical effects, these effects are natural and can be tested. ID is all talk and the only claims it makes are that evolution or other physical processes can't explain something, in that it's a rehashing of creation science. Genuine scientists such as Asa Gray have continued belief in creation while looking for physical processes as explanations. .. . dave souza, talk 17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
p.s. Then a miracle occurs – debated. . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked it up - Chapter 17 in the 2006 edition is about ID - and as far as I could find, in those 26 pages, Numbers does not utter an opinion on the question "Is ID creationism"? He does quote what other people say on the subject and the reasons they give, and it is what is already in the Intelligent Design article: the scientist say it is ("creationism in a cheap tuxedo") and ID folks deny it. No surprise there. I guess he didn't think his own thoughts on the matter were relevant.

So why should we?

On page 398, he says that "many people find it difficult to distinguish from biblical or scientific creationism", but that it is different from those is a different question, which is hardly controversial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806232139/http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230215318/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217031633/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531055952/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

Brian Alters, the president of the National Center for Science Education‘s board of directors, said in 2006, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." I don't know if that exact number is accurate, but the sentiment is absolutely true--there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. So why can't I find a reliable source that says this? Seriously... this is should be easy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I found something from Pew: 98% support for evolution, which it calls "near consensus." This seems like hedging to me, as consensus generally doesn't require unanimity. I wonder if we can do better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Found found --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed tags in lead section

I've just supplied 4 easily found citations for the claims made in the intro. So whoever is going through trying to cast doubt on the claims obviously has an agenda. By doing this they in fact bolster the claims made in the article. Edit: make that 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel tango (talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Weasel tango: I'm not sure why these were tagged for citations since it's the lead (WP:LEAD) which should simply summarize the article. You may want to improve the Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics section (the citations may be more appropriate there, with the lead including a summary of that section without the need for sources). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I added those tags because citations were missing, both in the lead and the body. I didn't delete anything, and I appreciate you adding the missing citations. My agenda here is to make a more robust, policy-compliant article, and together we appear to have accomplished that goal. Not everyone whose edits you don't like is some sort of rabid creationist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in the "ID is not creationism" section

First the article claims that Ronald Numbers made comments to a newspaper suggesting that he does not think ID is creationism, then it suggests that Numbers stated the exact opposite in one of his books. Which is it? Is the article misrepresenting one of these sources? Did Numbers change his mind at some point? As far as I can tell, the article characterizes Numbers's comments he made to the newspaper accurately, but I don't have Numbers's book, so I can't tell whether the article is correctly characterizing the views he expresses therein. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have the book, and the problem is, none of "the views he expresses therein" are his own. documenting intelligent design as a form of creationism is true. In the book, Numbers indeed documents how knowledgeable people call ID creationism, and also how ID proponents contradict that view, but he never says outright which side he himself agrees with. Maybe he thinks it is his duty as a historian to be sitting on the fence regarding questions like that. Or just to write as if he were.

In the paper he is quoted as calling the ID is creationism" statement "inaccurate", without giving specifics what he means by that. Well, "the speed of light is 300000 km/s" is inaccurate but not wrong. ID is clearly part of the same phenomenon as "creation science", but it there are differences. There are also differences between Young-Earth and Old-Earth creationism. I guess Numbers would agree that ID, creation science, YEC, OEC and so on are all examples of religion-driven opposition to evolutionary science, but he reserves the term "creationism" for everything except ID.

So, the two statements you call contradictory are both true to some extent, and their contradictoryness is also true to some extent. Another statement that is true to some extent is "one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view" - how many historians are there whose field is creationism? Numbers is the only one I know. Maybe there are others, maybe they all say ID is not creationism. But he is definitely in the minority among creationism experts, which, I admit, is not a formally defined group. Those are mainly natural scientists, especially biologists, who are competent to evaluate and compare the reasoning of ID proponents and creationists. Numbers is not competent to do that, and for the most part, he does not do it. He just documents others doing it and keeps his own opinion private in his actual work. Insofar, yes, he is the odd man out.

I do not have a real solution for the actual problem, but maybe I could help a bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the newspaper article is just older. It's pre-Kitzmiller. I have never seen Numbers disagree with Kitzmiller. I think the big issue is that it's an exceptional claim based on a very weak source. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's been a while since I've read Numbers' book, but given the title of the book: The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, it's pretty clear that he considers ID creationism (which is consistent with what I remember of it). I have no reason to assume that the AP story got his perspective wrong, but that was in 2002, while the expanded edition of The Creationists was first published in 2006.

I'm going to remove the first mention because honestly, it is something of an exceptional claim. Guettarda (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed: this was discussed before, a few sections above, in #Whether ID is creationism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the statement was added by Ed in this edit, which cites a DI blog post from 2001. The AP story, which uses the same wording, is from 2002. That means that it was probably taken from the DI article, and isn't likely to be an original quote that the article's author got from Numbers. That makes it especially iffy. Guettarda (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, no, my mistake. The date on the DI article must be wrong. It's a copy of the AP article which seems to have appeared in a number of places in March 2002. Still, I stand by my belief that it's not a strong enough source for this claim, especially since Numbers doesn't seem to have expressed this opinion later. Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)