Talk:Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Before doing a detailed review, I have some issues on the structure of this article that I think need to be discussed first. The reception section has no contemporaneous comments on the publication of the book. Hume died before the book was published. Darwin is commenting some time after, and Gould and Dawkins are much later modern authors. I realise that it is standard to have a reception section, but this one does seem to be misnamed. The context section claims the book was well received, but there is no citation for this.

The critics of Paley in this article, Hume, Darwin, Gould and Dawkins, are all highly notable individuals and their views are rightly included here. But why is Taylor included? Many creationists have deployed the watchmaker analogy, there does not seem to be any special reason to single out Taylor. On first sight, it might seem appropriate to include Taylor for balance. But to my mind there is an WP:UNDUE issue here. The for and against arguments are presented as if they have equal status. There is no hint that the vast weight of scientific opinion supports evolution and rejects the watchmaker analogy. SpinningSpark 13:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Any better name for the reception section will be welcome. I carry no brief for either side, certainly not Taylor's, and chose Taylor simply because he was clear on his particular point of view, which we need to acknowledge as a sincerely held view, and describe neutrally; if you think we need to include some others, I'm happy to be guided to them. The presence of Darwin, Gould and Dawkins alone should be enough to indicate the powerful weight of opinion against Paley, though I'd be very hesitant to try to use number of opponents and quotations as !votes. The watchmaker analogy is rightly a separate article. On reception at the time, I doubt we can do much better than to note that the book was many times reprinted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a few versions that were published in America through different publishers - of particular note would be the work as published by E. S. Gorham because it contained revisions by F. LeGros Clark in order to "harmonize with modern science". Though I've not seen this particular text, the attempt to "update" it in a sense with modern science likely made departures that were not in alignment with the publications that remained faithful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is enough to assume that readers will make that interpretation from the list of persons quoted. If we are going to give opinions from the evolutionist/creationist controversy then it needs stating explicitly that evolution has the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion behind it. It is straightforward to cite this fact [1][2] or even that common public opinion favours it [3]. The quotes from famous writers are merely examples illustrating this basic fact. It's ok for the article to be saying that Paley still has his supporters, but they are very much WP:FRINGE and this should be made clear. Taylor is only one of many diehard deniers and if he were portrayed in that light this would be ok. Giving him equal credence to Darwin or Dawkins is not ok. Someone of equal status would be a Pope, archbishop, or top-ranked religious philosopher for instance. I don't understand your point about the watchmaker analogy having its own article. That would be an argument for not saying anything about it at all. If we are going to discuss it (and I think we should) it needs placing in its proper context.

On the name of the section, my suggestion would be that a lot of the material could go in a "Legacy" section (not Hume though), but I am also happy with the change to the title you made recently. SpinningSpark 16:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and see no need to include anything that even might possibly be interpreted as fringe. I have removed Taylor and substituted a brief analysis from the NCSE with a quote saying that scientists reject Paley, and that creationism follows Paley. I have included a statement from Rafferty as suggested on support for evolution among scientists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

Images

• I'm having difficulty with File:Rhyssa persuasoria.jpg. It's source is claimed to be http://www.strykowski.net/ and is licenced as CC-BY-SA 2.5. First of all, I can't find the image on the site (although I haven't looked at all of them - there are a lot of images). All the images I looked at are either marked as copyright or "all rights reserved". There is no OTRS ref on the file's page. So what I am seeing at the moment is an assertion of permission but no evidence of permission.

Shame, it's far the best image. Replaced.

Lead

• The lead seems a little short and does not fully reflect the article. Some more on the books content and opinions would be in order.

Done.

• "Both Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins respected its arguments." This gives a rather misleading impression to anyone who does not already know the true situation. Both Darwin and Dawkins were/are opponents of Paley's arguments, but that could not be divined from that statement at all. "Respected" is possibly a poor choice of words. Dawkins is well known for showing very little respect to anyone. Darwin, after many years, coming to the conclusion that Paley was wrong does not amount to a statement of respect and there is nothing else in the article that could support such a statement. I think perhaps what was intended to say here is that Darwin and Dawkins both took Paley's arguments seriously and were motivated to provide serious responses to them.

Good comment. Reworded as indicated.

Context

• "Watchmaker analogy", this is not capitalised in its own article and I would not expect it to be capitalised here either.

Done.

• " Paley's use of the watch...continued a long tradition of analogical reasoning". If this is just saying that Paley used analogies, it is superfluous as the article has already said this. If it is saying that his work is to be considered part of some wider movement or method of reasoning then it needs citing.

Removed.

Outline

• Why is the word "STATE" in capitals in chapter 1 and the rest of the title in title case? The image plainly shows the title in all caps, and so do editions of the book I can find online. MOS:ALLCAPS says "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to sentence case or title case."

Done.

• Same comment for chapters 7 and 8.

Done.

• A lot of the links I would consider WP:OVERLINK, eye, seed and egg to name just a few of them. "...not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context..."

Removed. This is always a delicate balance.

• "it's". Deprecated by MOS:N'T

Done.

• "No argument...can explain the eye (or any other example)". Examples of what?

Done.

• Chapter 8 "-Of the Bones". This is a sub-heading, not part of the chapter title.

Removed.

• "organs adapted (sic)". Why is the sic needed here?

Said "Paley writes" explicitly, as readers might think 'adapted' a Darwinian word, but it was in use earlier.

Philosophy

• "who died in 1776". The salient point here is that Hume died before the book was published, rather than the exact year of his death. It would be best to state that explicitly.

Done.

• The analogy link is not first occurrence.

Done.

Creationism

• The final quote is referenced but not attributed in-article as required by MOS:QUOTE.

SpinningSpark 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Second pass

• It might be worth contacting the uploader of the Rhyssa persuasoria image. They seem to be good faith and active and might be able to resolve the isssue.

Maybe, but it was a very long time ago and seemingly in Poland.

• "The book was written in the context of the natural theology tradition, involving figures such as ..." This could easily be mistaken as meaning Ray and Denham were involved in writing the book. The whole sentence is hard to parse. It would be better to break into two or three sentences making one point at a time.

Split.

• "It continues to be consulted both by creationists and by evolutionary biologists. Both Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins took its arguments seriously and responded to them." I am still far from happy with this. Creationists may be consulting the book as reference material, but I don't think it is fair to say that evolutionary biologists are so consulting it. Darwin is clearly responding to Paley directly, but I am pretty sure that modern scientists would cheerfully ignore him entirely if it were not for modern creationists continuing to deploy his arguments. They are responding to the modern proponents of the argument rather than Paley directly. Further, the passage fails to say that evolutionary biologists are opposed to Paley's ideas. If all one had to go on was the lead of this article one might come away with the idea that biologists were Paley's greatest fans.

Reworded as indicated.

• "MECHANICAL" is still in all caps

Done.

• My comment on overlinking just gave some examples. The whole article needs going through to check for this. More examples: puppet, tongue, heart, feather.

Removed some more. These links do have some value, so removing them is a trade-off. For example with feather, readers might want to look at their structure as admired by Paley. Have now linked to heart valve rather than heart.

• " (Paley writes)". I don't think this is an improvement. Personally, I don't think any clarification is needed here, but if we are going to have something, the standard sic is preferable.

OK, removed.

• The publishing history goes only up to 1854. However this and this indicate that it is still in print now. That is also a salient point for the lead once the article is updated. SpinningSpark 12:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, the article has now been promoted to GA. SpinningSpark 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (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.