Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 4

Wha and when
The consensus version of the lede discussed above was changed to "is the name given to a petition notable for its use in promoting intelligent design". This raises the question of who named it. I've therefore merged in content from the second sentence, and changed it to "is the name given by the Discovery Institute to a petition which they produced and continue to use to promote intelligent design". I've also shown the date first published, which is significant. Almost seven years, and those folks are still being touted in support of ID! . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you and others see your edits in this area as part of a war against disinformation, deception and bad faith, and that therefore you may be overcompensating and giving the article an inappropriate, rant-like tone? 86.44.28.52 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Outsider's impression
I have just completed a sweep of the article as an editor with little interest in the science/religion controversy and I am very concerned at the state of the article. Outside the first paragraph, the entire article is given over to criticism of the topic, very little in the way of neutral factual description (beyond criticism) of the document, and little if any space is given to the opinions of the Discovery Institute or supporters of the document. Prior to my edits, opinions were constantly being misrepresented as fact, weasel statements along the lines of "many critics say that" abounded, and opinions rarely attributed to their source. In short, this article is a travesty of POV, and I have tagged it as such until the issues I have highlighted (through inline tags) have been addressed. Sincerely, Skomorokh  18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the changes I made to the article in good faith and as I see it in accordance with policy would be discussed on a case by case basis instead of mass-reverting. Sincerely, Skomorokh  04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding this change I made to the article, I pushed the wrong button, which didn't allow me to add an edit summary. In essence, the changes made by Skomorokh go against a long-term consensus of numerous editors, add POV to the article by rewriting several statements including removal of content that laid out one of the major issues of this push.  Finally, it is a "critique" because almost every single reliable source criticizes this issue.  Any attempt to give undue weight to a fringe theory, even if it ends up a solid criticism in this article, cannot be allowed.  Please review WP:NPOV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely incredible. I had heard there was a "clique" of editors attempting to control articles related to "intelligent design" but I didn't give it any credence until now. Along with the reasonably contestable tags, you reverted attributed statements by opponents of the document to weasel ones and restored poorer quality reference formating. What better proof that you had no intent of relinquishing control of these articles. How utterly transparent and shameless. As I am not here to war over articles but to write them, I will bid you adieu, and wish you all the success in your endeavours on Wikipedia you so richly deserve. Regards, Skomorokh  05:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a personal attack.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, some of Skomorokh's changes seemed to me to look valid, but overall it was rather a curate's egg which had problems of NPOV: Giving "equal validity" to NPOV: Pseudoscience, and was unsuitable in WP:FRINGE terms. If possible, it would be useful to consider each of the edits as pointers to possible improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also an outsider coming to this article. I too see that it does not meet NPOV requirements. I am going to make a series of edits to the article. None of them are going to promote the idea of Intelligent Design at all. I have a view on the question but I am not going to state it here. All I am interested in as an editor is getting the article to stick to facts and not make its own interpretations. Please bear this in mind. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

darwinism versus evolutionary theory
I would like to point out a very confusing and non systematic way by which the terms darwinism and the theory of evolution are being used. They are used like they are one and the same, which is not true. Sometimes the arguements against this petition are based on how scientists view evolution, but not specifically about darwinism. For instance, Lynn Margulis, a well known american biologist (see endosymbiotic theory) who believes in evolution but does not believe in darwinism (she thinks neodarwinism is a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology"). I think this article should be more careful about this very important difference. Darwinism and the theory of evolution are not one and the same. There are some very specific differences therefore the differences in terminology. the petition strongly points this out: they are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Many of them might fully agree with Lynn Margulis endosymbiotic theory or the effect of virii on evolution (see the evolution of mammals by Luis R Villarreal of the University of California Irvine). finally I would like to give an example that I think has been affected by the above criteria: " The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[10] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".

but do they only accept darwinism or do they accept margulis'endosymbiotic theory as well or the effect of virii on evolution? therefore I really think you should make a more clear distinction between evolutionary theory and darwinism Artemis enaid (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Darwinism" can mean: The meaning constantly mutates, evolves and/or devolves, depending on audience, offensive vs defensive posture, etc. HrafnTalkStalk 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically:
 * Darwin's original theory of 'evolution by natural selection'
 * Creationist pejorative:
 * "Macroevolution" (but 'we accept microevolution')
 * Evolution by "genetic mutation and natural selection", as employed by ASDfD ("GM+NS" -- a common creationist strawman misrepresentation of the modern Theory of Evolution)
 * Evolutionary biology, geology, geochronology, cosmology, and/or methodological naturalism ('evolutionary science' as opposed to 'creationary science').
 * It's a very good point which I'm trying to work on, drawing on Browne's Darwin: Power of Place for the situation from 1959 to 1882. From the current draft –
 * Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or ideas which have followed on or been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Charles Darwin's work on evolution, and its meaning depends on who is using the term and the period in which the term is used. The term was coined by Huxley in April 1860 at a time when he was championing Darwin's work without fully accepting natural selection, and in the 1870s came into international use to describe evolutionary ideas and ideas of competition, including ideas such as Malthusianism and Spencerism which predated Darwin's publication of his ideas. In the late 19th century it was applied to August Weismann's idea that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, and the principle of the Weismann barrier meant there could be no inheritance of acquired characteristics. Although this view was known as Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism, it was in disagreement with Darwin's own belief that "use and disuse inheritance" played a part, a belief which was then tagged Lamarckism.
 * More sources to be introduced, of course. . . dave souza, talk 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true that the term darwinism indeed has many definitions nowadays. Unfortunately it seems to confuse many discussions. However, the 'dissidents' have given their specifics on what they mean with darwinism: they are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I think we should try to focus on that specific claim and try not to get into any interpretation differences of the term darwinism itself. What do you think? Artemis enaid (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Without that being a verifiable viewpoint supported by reliable sources, it's original research. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody might want to forward this discussion to your man, Richard Dawkins. I was just watching his "Blind Watchmaker" video. In it, he uses the two terms--Darwinism and evolution--interchangeably. -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Loopy redirects
I've been looking at the section on misrepresented credentials. I don't want to reduce it to nothing because it is clearly a notable criticism of the petition. But someone really needs urgently to undo the redirects that have been created, presumably to avoid red links. Where people don't have an article there is a redirect to the article on notable people and organisations in the creation-evolution debate. Etc. It all looks very unprofessional, and it creates the impression that these debates are more notable than they actually are, therefore feeds into POV-pushing, mostly utterly counterproductive. 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only person with a "loopy redirect" is Raymond Bohlin. I think the stub about him could be restored. Then, there are a few orgnizations/websites:
 * Probe Ministries
 * Christian Answers
 * TrueOrigin Archive
 * I remember the last one being deleted and the decision to redirect seemed reasonable. Merzul (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Name given to ...
Before Itsmejudith tried to improve the writing, the article started "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is the name given by the Discovery Institute to a petition which they produced and continue to use to promote intelligent design." Although this improves the writing, it omits a possibly significant fact. Supposedly, Rosalind Picard never knew this was called a "Dissent" when she signed it. If that's true, then the previous lead was more accurate in this regard. Merzul (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Supposedly" according to a former Wikipedia editor. Not supported by a reliable source, AFAIK.  Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, one person not knowing it was called 'dissent' is kinda trivial and irrelevant. Several is a pattern, but all would need sources.  WLU (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, although I'm fairly sure this is the truth. But then, we're not into the truth business... I'll look if there is a source for this. Merzul (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero's/Judith's deletion
Relata refero (see, I got it right at last!) has asked that anyone undoing his & Judith's deletion of the Forrest source should discuss the matter. I am happy to discuss the matter, but it's impossible when no explanation was given for the deletion. So, my initial rationale for restoring the material is that I don't understand why it was deleted.

That's about the best I can do at this stage. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the lead is being edited in this way. The criticism is easily as relevant as the petition itself and should be featured very prominently in the lead.  It's motivation (which is sourced) and its design (also sourced) are vital and requires more text than the rather tepid "The document has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources."  WLU (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even as subsequently modified by RR, seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV/FAQ, removing an issue which is a significant part of the article and failing to show properly the mainstream view of the fringe view. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just can't figure out why Relata is so averse to using the talk page. Instead of explaining himself, he does this instead.  Weird.  Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you could wait a few moments. No? OK. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An hour and three quarters (or even half an hour) strikes me as a little more than "a few moments". But hey, maybe that's just me.  Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, it would be more than a few moments. Pity its not relevant. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Misunderstanding-schmisunderstanding. I know enough about fringe, thanks. The point is that a neutral presentation of the petition sourced preferably to a secondary source and its stated motivation, followed by a clear statement of the mainstream view of its real motivation, is more than sufficient, per "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any". If anything further is required, it might be a neutral mention of the exact extent of this petition's use (to explain the degree of notability, as required above), preferably from a source that discusses, rather than is part of, the political controversy. This is straightforward, but such straightforward matters are rarely straightforward in this neck of the woods. Whatever, I don't need this argument. I really should follow the rules I make for myself. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is neutral to portray it as illegitimate if sources have discussed it as such. Since there are lots of critical sources that do so, and since the page itself does this with pretty extensive sourcing, the lead should reflect this.  There is more to the controversy than there is to dissent itself.  Current version seems fine to me.  WLU (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the definition of neutrality you are using? That isn't in the policy as it stands, I think. Please re-read my above comments more carefully. About your penultimate sentence, I think you are confusing the primary reason for something's notability with an appropriately neutral treatment. It's a common error. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead seems to summarize the key points. That's why I reverted.  Sounds like this discussion has run its course.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What, in half-an-hour? Brilliant. Thanks for the belated explanation, however. I just thought you were testing an automatic tool of some sort. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you did say "Whatever, I don't need this argument". It's reasonable to read that as "I'm done".  Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonable if you and he in fact believe that nobody else could share my view. In the absence of that absurdly restrictive constraint, no, quite remarkably unreasonable. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the two versions (the differences between the versions are in bold italics)

So how are they different? R&J's version leaves out


 * that it is one of the DI's campaigns to discredit evolution;
 * that the statement is "artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public"; and
 * that the DI claims that the signatories are listed by degree or current position", but, of course, that reality says otherwise.

So does this belong in the lead or not? Per WP:LEAD, the role of the lead is to (a) establish context, and (b) provide an accessible overview and that "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" (in other words, it should be governed by the same requirements for balance that the articles are).

So, in additional to establishing context, the lead needs to present an overview of the article. So what does the article cover?


 * 1) Statement
 * 2) Discovery Institute usage
 * 3) Critical responses
 * 4) Expertise relevance
 * 5) Affiliations and credentials
 * 6) Defections and disagreements
 * 7) Counter-petitions

So if you look at it, #1 is covered in the lead. #2 is present in the original version; R&J's version does not present a balanced summary. #3 is covered in the original (but not really adequately summarised), not present in R&J's version. #4 is missing from both versions. #5 is present in the original, deleted by R&J. #6 is missing from both versions. #7 is missing from both versions.

Based on this, I'd say that the original does fall a little short of WP:LEAD, but R&J's version makes the problem worse, not better. Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd reorder those 7 points but otherwise I endorse Guettarda's comments. Incidentally, the policy I'd cite for neutrality would be WP:UNDUE - a lead that does not give sufficient weight to the enormous amount of scientific, philosophical, linguistic and social criticisms of the list is undue weight on the DI's opinions.  It's not a good list, it doesn't prove anything and this has been pointed out by several sources.  I'd venture there's more expert opinions on how it's not a good list and not a good tool for any purpose than there is actual documentation of the list itself.  WLU (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that 6 & 7 are sufficiently minor/tangential issues that failure to mention them in the lead is acceptable. Failure to adequately cover 3 (and subsidiarily 4 & 5) would appear to violate WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the very crucial fact is how the list has been used and the following sentence is very important: "The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized." It's a fair statement of fact. Instead, the other version summarizes this using the "appeal to authority", which I consider the most problematic subjective judgment in the lead (see below). Merzul (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but as far as I can see it is a correct paraphrase of the paper. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course criticism is an important part of the petition's notability and this should be mentioned in the lead. What the article shouldn't do is endorse the criticisms. I am going to work on the Responses section first and then the lead. The Responses section is weakly sourced with no reference to any academic paper or book. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sounds good. I absolutely agree that criticism should be presented without Wikipedia endorsing it. Also, I do appreciate your edits to this page. Instead of chatting here, I will look during the weekend to see if better sources can maybe be found to help you with that section. Merzul (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, Merzul. My current impression is that there has not been much written in good sources about the petition. This is therefore one case that illustrates a more general problem in relation to fringe theories (NB that I believe that Intelligent Design counts as a fringe theory). That is that the more fringey the theory, the less academics and serious commentators want to engage with it. The article must somehow indicate that the viewpoint of the DI is at odds with the mainstream scientific view and the difficulty is how to do that without turning the article into an unsourced rant against the DI, ID and the petition. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority again
The one thing in the current lead that catches my attention is the statement that this is an appeal to authority. No prose attribution is used, the article just states that it is. This was discussed here, but that discussion focuses on whether the list really is an appeal to authority or not. Most reasonable people would agree that it is, but I still think that prose attribution should be used.

"Appeal to authority" is an informal logical fallacy, so judging whether an argument constitutes an appeal to authority is necessarily subjective. Therefore, it's not something that can be stated as a fact. Merzul (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it should be kept in mind that the scientific consensus opposing view which is frequently presented as an argument against the DI list, is itself an Appeal to authority. That's a knife that cuts both ways. Does everybody really want to go there? Besides the fact that the frequent use of this phrase (with its accompanying Wikilink) is awkwardly bad prose, it just seems ham-handedly inserted to make an obvious point more obvious with its highly connotative implications. -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical responses
I would like this article to have a very strong section on how the petition has been received and will help to develop it by searching for appropriate texts. It is not necessary to pick out particular criticisms in the lede. I don't have a problem with citing Forrest's paper in the responses section. In the case of Renka I am concerned that this is an early and unpublished response. I am going to look and see whether Renka has since published on the issue. It is very important to give priority to criticisms published in the legitimate academic media. WP is not part of the blogosphere. If academics are ignoring the DI and its campaigns, then maybe this article and others in the series should simply be shorter. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked through Renka's areas of expertise. Apart from this unpublished web paper he has written nothing else related to the politics of biology, evolution or science. His publications (mainly conference papers) are all about US government. I can't see that this counts as a notable response to the petition, so have removed it. Please be assured that I want all notable responses, however scathing or sycophantic, to be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion, pressed the wrong button. As discussed above, the WP:LEAD should summarise main points of the article. Also note that scientific "blogs" can be accepted in many circumstances, so have reverted for now. Will aim to return to this. . dave souza, talk 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that blog comments by scientists who have also published in a relevant field may be acceptable. It is still important to prioritise publications in academic media. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And if not, by recognised experts. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OM + Judith, here would be the place for discussion. My own opinion is that it is not reliable enough for the factual statement in the lead, but I don't mind its attributed use in the body of the article. Merzul (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: since OM started a new thread, please continue below: . :) Merzul (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

?
? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (see also WP:TALK) HrafnTalkStalk 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a subjective evaluation. It was kind of interesting, although completely wrong (being anti-darwin is anti-science, sorry), but hardly the worse thing ever done to these pages.  We leave stuff on the discussion pages from individuals whose POV-pushing is substantial.  WAS's commentary was readable, philosophical, and had a few germane points.  If we were to delete POV comments on this page, that comment wouldn't make the top 10 list.  Sorry.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your aside: "(being anti-darwin is anti-science, sorry)." The text says: "What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes." You are misreading or not reading closely. The point is that there are aspects of natural evolution that some believe need non-Darwinian theories to explain in a predictive scientific manner in the same way that something is incomplete ("wrong") about relativity and quantum theory because they both can not be "right". On the next page he goes on to repeat a famous biologist's guess that what might be missing is a theory that has predictive power that emphasises the merger of living systems in a way that radically increases useful complexity like when two cells merged to form the first nucleated cell. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I get a little frustrated with all these comments about "Darwinism." When I studied evolution in college, the course was called "Evolution," not Darwinism.  And when I went to graduate school, I took a course on the Evolution of Behavior.  It wasn't the Darwinism of Behavior.  Charles Darwin initiated the study of Evolution, and a huge percentage of what he stated is the basis of the modern Science of Evolution.  It's kind of amazing since many fields of biology hardly existed at the time.  Scientists stand up for "Darwinism" not because every facet of his theories are correct, but because it's a code word used by anti-science types to make the Science of Evolution appear to sound like a religion started by the Cult of Darwin--it isn't.  Otherwise, the article Evolution states fairly clearly the modern science of Evolution.  And the evolution of the the science of Evolution has been dramatic since Darwin was alive.  Cell theory, DNA. mutations, etc. are all new to the science.  So you are partially right, but we have to move away from the usage that Darwinism=Evolution=the religion of science.  It isn't.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Exactly. Well said. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with OM, the post was a bit long, but I think it deserves a reply. WAS, what you wrote could very well be a reason someone would sign a petition like this, but even years after the prominent use (or abuse) of the petition, very few of the signatories have distanced themselves from the so called dissent. If we were to come upon someone's explanations along those lines for signing this petition, then that should certainly be included in the article. Please keep in mind though that such speculations essentially amount to accusations that the Discovery Insitute is misleading people, which is a very serious charge. Of course, I would personally love to point out the the title of this petition was added after the fact, but with only Moulton's blog as a source, we obviously can't accuse the DI of unethical conduct. I think the same goes for more subtle issues. Merzul (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your response was what I was looking for. I don't keep up on these talk pages, so I have no knowledge of the extent any of them have been asked why they signed or what they think of how their signing has been used. I thought it important that people keeping this article in neutral shape (thank you guys!) should have enough background knowledge to perceive subtle differences in people's positions. Promoting one's own research into finding theories of evolution that have more predictive power than current theory is in no way promotion of ID or creationism. The key difference is are they arguing for more predictive theories or not. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't take any credit for maintaining these pages in good shape, but I would join you in thanking those who do. About your point, yes, I agree the distinction is important. More concretely, it is an interesting question whether people having signed the petition are involved in current research to find more predictive theories. Given what I know about their qualifications, there can't be many; but it's worth keeping an open mind. I searched a bit but didn't find much, although this is an interesting blog post, which is somewhat related. Merzul (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the original posting because it was an attempt to discuss a general subject rather the editing of this article on a specific topic: a petition started by a the Discovery Institute. If there are third party sources linking Lynn Margulis' work to this petition, then those sources may be put into the article where appropriate.  However the original edit looked pretty clearly to be an attempt to use Wikipedia discuss a broader subject.  There are forums for that. --Jenny 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Tony Sidaway", "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The", "Jenny", "RegenerateThis": You are smart and creative. Those are wonderful qualities. You also act many times in ways that help Wikipedia. But, alas, we all fall short of perfection. In this case, you are mistaken. My edit helps provide important background information for editors here to use in their making of editorial judgements. I know you understand the importance of editors making informed editorial choices, as you make such informed choices all the time. Deleting my contribution has not prevented anyone from reading it, has it. Hmmm. So what good did you do? Oh, I know! You brought attention to my post. Oh, yes. Now I see. Well, thank you, Tony, for bring attention to a needed concern. You are truly an asset to Wikipedia. Thanks again. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The intention certainly wasn't to stop others reading what you had to say. As I have suggested, there are appropriate places to say it and this isn't one of them.  --Jenny 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Signatories section earlier
I believe that the article would be better structured if a section "Signatories" immediately followed the statement. This could carry facts about the claimed numbers of signatories from the petititon's promoters followed by the criticisms of the standing of signatories. I'd like to see all criticisms of the way that credentials were presented and challenges to descriptions of individuals' standing bearing a good inline reference. Barbara Forrest seems to be the most notable critic of the petition but ideally we would refer to a more substantive publication of hers on the issue. Surely there was coverage in the mainstream media that is not currently drawn on? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are actually more important points than the Renka ref that I spent so much time on, the sourcing of this section is of highest priority, especially since it involves living people and their credentials. Some paragraphs are without references and that's a bit worrying. Merzul (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit
Merzul, I don't think it's appropriate to make proposals in an edit summary. I won't revert, but there will be 10 other editors that will, and we're going to have an edit war. Two issues: first, this reference and statement are sourced, and it is a significant issue with regards to this "petition." More importantly, if you're going to make a suggestion to move it somewhere, then move it, don't just delete away. Right now, it just appears that you want to delete it, not make a compromise (which still isn't appropriate in an edit summary). So, how do we make this a consensus change? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See above. I don't mind if you revert this edit, but I am impressed that you are patient about this. However, if you compare my version with Judith's: here, you'll note that it is a compromise. Also, I'm currently trying to find a more reliable source for a similar kind of statement. As to an edit war, I will not re-revert anyone, I make proposed edits to article only once. Merzul (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine for the body, but per above, not reliable enough to be given such prominence in the lead. - Merzbow (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature, you might still want to dignify this with an appropriate edit summary. You are stating an opinion from a self-published source in the lead of this article as if it were a fact. Shall we take this to WP:RS/N? Merzul (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are many cases where a self-published source is a fine WP:RS. See WP:SPS.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like self-published sources. There are better.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case, I have so far been unable to find more reliable sources on the petition. I looked at what I could find on http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/, where I have access to religion, but not biology, and couldn't find much discussion about the petition itself. Based on brief mentions in books on ID that I looked at, I'm starting to lean towards the conclusion that since this seems more related to the politics of it all (as opposed to religion/biology), the source in question is actually not that bad as it falls within his field of competence. Merzul (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right that the questions at issue are political and that this author is a political scientist. Nevertheless, my view about this source is that it is on the margin of reliability. Yes, we often accept blog comments from academics who are actively publishing elsewhere in the same field, but on this occasion the posting appears to be this academic's only venture anywhere near the areas of biology, religion, science policy or pseudoscience. His other publications are all about constitutional politics. For the time being, let us leave it in the body but take it out of the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Institute usage
I deleted the first part of the first sentence:


 * "By promoting a false perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community ..."

There was nothing in either reference that supported the idea that DI was "promoting a false perception ..." intentionally or otherwise. This was simply biased, un-sourced, POV rhetoric. - DannyMuse (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have restored it, with minor alteration to avoid WP:SYNTH. The sources state that scientific support for evolution is "overwhelming" -- which directly contradicts the view that the DI is promoting. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attempt at avoiding WP:SYNTH. I have reviewed your edit and made my own alteration. It seems awkward and is unnecessary to state the scientific consensus POV every time a point is made about the DI. Besides being stylistically clumsy it appears paranoid. Please review and see what you think. - DannyMuse (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This entire section--indeed much of this article--is filled with out of date and redundant material. DI has published this list for years. Many of the comments and sources are in reference to the 2001 list, NOT the current list. If we want to give a historical perspective of the subject that would make sense, but the way it is now, it appears to the first time visitor to this article that the comments and sources are about the currently published list and they are not. At the least it seems poorly organized and out-of-date; at the worst it might appear dishonest to a savvy reader. For example, when the Response section states that "professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent" that simply is not accurate regarding the currently published list by DI.

In summary, this article is in need of some serious revisions to bring it up-to-date and to remove redundancy. - DannyMuse (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "In summary" your accusations of "out of date and redundant material" is vague and unsubstantiated. While the "DI has published this list for years", neither its content (a list of mostly irrelevantly-qualified academics, many of which are not even scientists) and purpose (to misrepresent the level of scientific opposition to evolution) has changed. To expect everything in the article to be referenced to the latest list, when it is re-released about twice a year is completely unreasonable and presents an absurd moving target. HrafnTalkStalk 08:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tell me you're kidding. What part of "out of date and redundant material" is vague and unsubstantiated? Now I'm worried about you, seriously. Regarding "out of date", the sources and the criticisms are not relevant to the current list. As for redundant, the same points are made again, and again and again in this article.


 * Are you at all interested in contributing to balanced articles on these subjects or do you just want to hammer the position that evolution is true and creationism is wrong in every way and every place you can? Seriously!


 * Hrafn, consider this: re-read the ENTIRE article with the same critical eye that you give my edits. It could prove enlightening. Just a thought. -- DannyMuse (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More bald, unsubstantiated assertion. Please provide evidence that the new additions to the list are not merely more of the same -- a bunch of mostly irrelevantly qualified, and often religiously motivated, academics, many of whom aren't even scientists. If you cannot, then the earlier criticisms of this list are not "out of date". HrafnTalkStalk 08:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note, the impression that the list has changed is misleading. As of this April, the latest revision includes Tour and Picard, both of whom have sort of dissociated themselves from ID. Thus the references to them in the NYT article remain relevant. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The incivility is not called for. Can I please remind everyone that it is not up to editors to provide evidence for every point they make when suggesting improvements to articles. The onus is on those who want material included to ensure that it is correctly sourced and referenced. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The material that DannyMuse is complaining about is "sourced and referenced" -- if it weren't it wouldn't have a date attached, and he therefore wouldn't be in a position to claim that it is outdated. Given that it is sourced, the onus is on him to present specific evidence 'impeaching' specific sourced material by demonstrating that the statements are no longer relevant to the current list -- not to merely assert that it is "out-dated". HrafnTalkStalk 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness. The sources in question go back to 2001 and the original DI List. While they are of historical interest they are not current. As I said above, DI has published this list for years. Why not have current sources regarding the current list? -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ROTFLOL. Are you claiming that at some unspecified time in the past the DI stopped misrepresenting this petition as anything other than a tiny, misqualified, religiously-motivated, and thus irrelevant, minority? If not, then the criticism of them for this continuing misrepresentation is not "out of date". HrafnTalkStalk 11:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to take a reasonable compromise here. If the recent updates haven't been notable enough to generate renewed attention, then we should use older sources; while being careful, of course, to not mislead, either by stating the "original list" or by using a strictly chronological presentation of the facts. Merzul (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that there are two loci of notability here: HrafnTalkStalk 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The original creation of the petition (as the '100 Scientists') as an attempt to rebut the PBS Evolution series (with leaked internal PBS documents, misquotes of PBS & all the rest of it). This is covered by both Evans and Creationism's Trojan Horse (pp172-174).
 * 2) It's ongoing usage as a propaganda tool. This is covered by the 2006 NYT expose.

Leonard Loose
I've been asked to explain my deletion. Simple, the interview cited does not support the point made, which is is a crude original synthesis and an embarrassment to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, it's normal to assume good faith. Your constant assumption of bad faith here makes for a very unpleasant environment.  The normal, polite thing to do would be to say "I don't think the statement is supported by the reference".  Instead, you call it "crude original synthesis" and an "embarrassment".  It's possible that the editor who added that fact (whomever it may have been) knew who loose was and added that fact, but it's far more likely that the person who added the information got it from another source, and imported the reference from the source, or that the snippet of information came from one place and the source from another.  It's amazing that you not only chose the less parsimonious explanation, you also chose one that necessarily assumes that an editor acted in bad faith.
 * Try to be civil. Stop making articles into battlegrounds.  It won't kill you.  Guettarda (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It costs nothing to be nice.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but you're preaching to the choir here. - DannyMuse (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I shall try harder to be nice. I did not mean any slur on the person or people who added the info. I just meant it was not a good result. I agree that it could well be the case that the sentence was the result of various edits from different places. I did originally come here only to help stop the warring. Since that isn't working, I shall withdraw. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Who precisely is being insulted by IMJ calling poor writing and inappropriate OR what it is? Please dont throw around clearly inapplicable accusations in this gratuitous manner. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Leonard Loose material is clearly original research; it's a negative swipe at an individual based on facts cobbled together from an interview. This is a BLP violation. - Merzbow (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you know that it's original research how? For it to be OR, someone would have had to have dug through the list of signatories and tracked down their credentials.  It's far more likely that someone picked up the info from a secondary source, and cited the primary source instead...you know, the way you're supposed to write in the real world, where facts matter more than rules?  I have no idea which one is true.  So I ask - do you know that was the case?  If so, how?  Or are you rather choosing to assume that the less probable alternative is true, because it supports your narrative of malice?  Of course, what's truly amusing here is that no one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statement.  No.  But hey, anything to draw battle lines and try and make "the other side" (whomever that may be) look bad.  Here's a novel idea - try assuming good faith, and stop turning articles into battlegrounds.  Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read many strange posts on this project, but never has my jaw dropped as far and for so long. Perhaps you want to read it again and determine whether you actually wish to continue claiming that every single obvious piece of OR being marked as OR is an assumption of bad faith? Also, I love the injunction not to turn this into a battleground. In other suggestions, Poland, please stop invading Nazi Germany. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is original research because the only cited source is a primary source, and the conclusion drawn in the article is not made by the source. You say that there might be some secondary source out that there to support this. How long should we wait for this source to appear? - Merzbow (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I didn't know that "assume good faith" had a temporal component. Though, of course, you still have made no attempt to answer my question - how do you know that this is original research?  Citing a primary source does not make something original research.  It's far more parsimonious to assume that whoever inserted the material cited their source's source.  In the real world, if you find a statement made in a secondary source, you examine the primary source material yourself, if it is at all possible.  Quite frankly, in my first couple years on the project, before I understood our back-to-front sourcing policy, I would have done that.  Since there is no way to distinguish whether this is OR and "improper" attribution of sources (improper, at least, in our arcane system), I am simply asking how it that you are able to so definitively exclude the more probable option.  That's all I'm asking.  Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF has nothing to do with it. If I add unsourced commentary to an entry it doesn't matter why I added it or, if it is possible to source the statement.  As long as no adequate source is provided here on Wikipedia, the commentary goes goes.  Pretty basic Wikipedia policy: see WP:V.  We can assume whatever we want, but that doesn't change the policy.  We can AGF, or not AGF but it is still up to the editors wanting the information to stay to find adequate sourcing without which, again the information goes.   And, yes it is OR to extrapolate from primary sources.  This again is abundantly clear: see WP:NOR
 * "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and"
 * "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
 * Simply citing a primary source does not make something OR but policy is quite clear on when using a primary source is within bounds and when it becomes OR. That makes two red herrings, AGF and an inapplicable aspects of primary sourcing.  Not very productive I'm afraid, when the subject matter is contentious.  Is there a problem here with recognizing that better sourcing is needed?  Just find a good source (or don't) and move one.PelleSmith (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The person who added that text isn't here to inform us whether or not he did have a secondary source, and because policy says that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", until he or someone else does come up with a proper source, we are perfectly justified in challenging and removing said text. - Merzbow (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Guetterda, I'm sure IMJ will adopt a softer tone as soon as good faith edits aren't instantly reverted. Fair enough? Frankly, the statement by IMJ is strictly about article content, it doesn't matter why and who added this material. It violates core content policies and should go. Merzul (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope so. She's made a habit of edit-warring and refusing to explain her edit here, but I am always willing to hope that an editor will reform.  Otherwise why bother asking? Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, a voice of reason, how refreshing. A spirit of cooperation rather than immediate reversion of good faith edits would not only improve the quality of the article, but the working environment too. Although, it looks like IMJ has been chased away, too bad. But thanks anyway, Merzul!!! -- DannyMuse (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IMJ has opened a BLPN discussion here. - Merzbow (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, a BP issue rather than a BLP issue. Fascinating source, putting the lie to this stuff about it being a negative swipe to describe someone as creationist or pro-intelligent design – he's proudly been creationist since 1933, and was set going again by a "Darwin Reconsidered tour organised with Professor Phillip Johnson and Dr. Andrew Snelling". So, nothing derogatory or untrue, but I'm inclined to agree that it violates NOR unless a reliable source has noted the issue of his graduation date in direct relation to the description of his qualifications in this petition. Hardly a scientist unless you include long term "creation scientists", but that's how the DI have padded out this petition. . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestinly enough, Leonard Loose passed away on 10 April 2007, but still appears on the Dissent list as "last publicly updated April 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position." Not lost, but gone before. . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the dispute
The above is getting messy, and moving away from talk about the article. Look, nobody is disputing the factual accuracy of these statements, but it reads like we, Wikipedia, are building our own case against the petition. This undermines the credibility of the article. There is good material here, less is more, quality over quantity. Merzul (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about Ferenc Jeszenszky?
What is the source for this? I have only found a blog post, which dates from February this year, I believe that post copies Wikipedia, not the other way around. Ferenc is here completely without a source, does anybody know where that stuff comes from? Merzul (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Letting the facts speak for themselves: lead proposal
Instead of saying that it is an appeal to authority, which as I argue above is highly subjective, could we instead just state some fact about the list, such as: "The original list contained 41 biologists, very few of which work in subfields associated with organismic and population-level biology."

"The list consists of 41 biologists (over half of whom are biochemists), 16 chemists, 4 engineers, 2 geologists/geophysicists, 8 mathematicians, 10 medical professionals, 4 social scientists, 15 from physics or astronomy, and 3 whose specialties we were unable to determine. Few were from biological subfields associated with organismic and population-level biology - the divisions of biology most closely associated with the study of evolution."

The above is from Skip Evans, there might be newer sources. Merzul (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Letting the facts speak for themselves is a great idea. Do you have a similar breakdown for the most current DI List? -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that after complaining bitterly about "outdated" information, DannyMuse is quite happy to have the oldest version of the one thing that has changed -- the raw numbers. As of 2006, these figures were far less flattering: "The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists... Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life." I also find it interesting that the number of biologists/biochemists is growing far slower than the total. This proposal also seem to suggest that we should exclude the wealth of prominent WP:RS analysis and opinion on the motivations of the petition's creator and its signatories -- "But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs." (again NYT piece -- third sentence), and the fact that the main topic of the Skip Evans piece was DI misrepresentation with the petition (specifically of a PBS quote into which they inserted 'Darwinian' in front of evolution). These are the issues that the RSs give prominent mention to, so surely this is what deserves prominence in the lead -- not the raw numbers that will change the next time the DI releases a new update. HrafnTalkStalk 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I find it amusing that they could dig up 128 biologists out of how many thousand Ph.D. and M.S. level biologists in the US (ignoring the rest of the world, since this stuff is really a US issue). it's clear that they lack any scientific credibility by being evolution denialists, but the percentage of the denialists amongst the scientific population as a whole is indicative of the fringe nature of these theories.  So I guess Hrafn, we are amused by the same facts but for different reasons.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A more informative characterisation in the lead would be one that gives WP:DUE weight to the viewpoints expressed in the RSs by stating that the scientific community has disputed that it represents a serious challenge to the Theory of Evolution (due to its small size comparative to the scientific community, the lack of a substantial number of signatories with relevant qualifications and the ambiguous wording of the petition), and that the NYT found that religious rather than scientific objections were the main motivation to signing. HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, those are slightly different statements than the "appeal to authority" that I want removed. The source in question uses the phrase fairly casually "appeal-to-authority" value and once about Lee Strobel. I'm not sure. In reality, this list is presented to show there is "controversy". Of course, that argument is also flawed, a non sequitur, it simply doesn't follow from the personal opinion of ~700 scientists that there is a scientific controversy, but strictly speaking the DI's use is not an appeal to authority. Merzul (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New lead...
The first sentence is crappy grammar, but all-in-all it is more neutral and I think presents all significant views. Merzul (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased it to improve the neutrality and grammar, though am still rather concerned that it tends to give the impression of "equal validity" of the pseudoscience viewpoint. Review welcome. . . dave souza, talk 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing reasonable balance to my edits. I have always appreciated your rewrites, as this is the spirit of co-operation that the Wiki is all about. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the change, but I have a lot of respect your your judgement....
 * Further names of signatories have been added at intervals, and the list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.
 * I concede that the statement is collectively and in principle backed up by the academic sources. The problem is that I can't find a source that directly backs up such a strong statement, in particular, about the continued use of the petition. Merzul (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the sourcing issues. I will add here what I've found to back things up. Forrest and Branch, in their OUP volume from 2004, page 172: Although a comment on the original advert, it clearly establishes a connection between this petition and The Wedge Strategy. The more recent position paper, which is currently used as source, backs up claims about the nature of the Wedge strategy, but it doesn't mention this petition in that context at all! What is needed are some minor tweaks and the moving of refs around, or have I missed something in that document? Merzul (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Wedge's most publicized move, however, was publication of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".
 * Agree about the position paper, the issue is better covered in TOA Claim CA112. Early 2007 updating and use of the petition is mentioned by Dembski in the UD post described and linked here, and the current use in the “Leaders Guide” for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (pdf download here) is described here and in more detail here – even as a primary source, it's pretty blatant. Sorry I'm a bit occupied on other articles etc. just now, if you can incorporate these references I'll be most grateful. . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do...
 * TOA Claim CA112 establishes that this list is commonly used in the creationism/evolution debate, though there is no connection to the DI in that source.
 * The blog post by Dembski probably is a reliable source for the list being updated, and nearing 700 signatories by 2007.
 * The Leader's Guide is indeed an obvious example of using this petition to promote intelligent design.
 * These are primary level sources, so we need to be careful in only making descriptive claims in using them, but together with the academic sources, this is pretty good. Now, I'm also busy in real life, so I'll be doing this slowly, maybe not before next weekend ... (Other people are of course welcome to do it for me :) Merzul (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Defections paragraph
The following sentence is in the 'defections' paragraph. It does not belong there. Even after it has been moved to the right place (where?), it has to be modified to make clear what 'similar' is.

''A detailed analysis of the 34 nominally British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list by the pro-evolution group British Centre for Science Education found similar problems with the list. The BCSE raised doubts about the claimed affiliations, commitment to intelligent design and relevant expertise of those on the list.'' Northfox (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Other criticisms
As a quick fix I created a new section under Responses. This is meant to be a temporary solution. My reason was that the content which I place under "Other criticisms" does not fit where it was under "Expertise relevance". If someone else would like to suggest a better organizational approach I'm all for it. -- DannyMuse (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Hi; I've just done an edit mainly to resolve some serious npov violations in the article. To make it clear where I'm coming from, I am a biologist myself and regard evolution-by-natural-selection as established beyond the slightest doubt. But there is a general principle that Wikipedia articles must not editorialize. Criticisms must be attributed to their sources, not stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I have removed a couple of lines that blatantly broke this rule, and moved another item into the "Responses" section, where it belongs. I also removed one objection that I think is misguided, namely, that "Darwinism" is a pejorative term. It may be used that way by creationists, but it is also used in a purely descriptive way by some scientists and philosophers. Anyway, I would like to emphasize that in the long run, critical editorializing actually weakens an article. People don't like to be told what to think, and doing so will create hostility even in readers who are naturally inclined to agree with you.Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hostile readers or not, WP:NPOV requires us to show properly sourced mainstream views, which you'd deleted so I've undone your edit. It will be welcome if you can set out your proposals in detail on this talk page before making such drastic changes. Attribution can be shown in the form of citations, and using in-text attribution of mainstream views to particular individuals named in the main text of the article can conflict with relevant policies, specifically WP:NPOV/FAQ. We should be showing significant views on the subject, and not confining sections of the article to uncritical exposition of a pseudoscience view. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, let me take another shot at explaining. I am a proponent of evolution, and a proponent of Wikipedia, and in both respects, this article embarrasses me.  It includes heavy-handed editorializing in places where it ought to just factually describe the contents of the statement.  The section "Statement" includes one short line about the statement itself, and then three paragraphs of criticism.  In the following paragraph, the phrase "whereas in fact evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science" simply does not belong in the sentence where it appears.  It does not affect the validity of the sentence, but only makes it more difficult to understand.Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that editorializing only weakens an article. This is a controversial article, so try making very small changes. Now, I essentially agree with your points, I think the "whereas" statement is spoon-feeding our readers; I'm thinking about this... Merzul (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looie, stating that your are a "proponent of evolution" makes many individuals suspicious. Most scientists do not "believe" in evolution, they accept it as a biological fact.  A statement of your viewpoint on evolution is not really necessary.  That being said, this encyclopedia should not give undue weight to fringe theories.  The vast preponderance of data and frankly the vast majority (I see 99.4% thrown about, but I don't think there's been a valid poll in the last few years) of natural science researchers accept evolution as a fact.  Thus, a ratio of three paragraphs of criticism to one of support seems a little light, given the amount of data out there.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of balance, it's a question of respecting your readers, of giving them the information they most likely want to know when they come to the article; of not treating them like boneheads. Look, suppose I were editing an article about the Greek God Zeus.  Nobody nowadays believes that Zeus is real.  Does that mean that for each sentence explaining what the Greeks believed about Zeus, there should be 99 sentences explaining that Zeus is only a myth?   Wouldn't that be absurd?  But that's where you end up if you are too obsessive about balance, and don't pay any attention to the needs of your readers.  (Also, I only mentioned my own attitude to try to make it clear that I am not trying to undermine the article.  Since you are skeptical:  my "civilian" name is WE Skaggs; I am a neuroscientist; I have a publication record that you can look up in Pubmed or Google Scholar; I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on the hippocampus, including all of the "evolution" section.  I am a big fan of evolution.)Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much good comes from discussing personal credentials; we need to discuss the question of how to achieve the fairly difficult balance between respecting the intelligence of our readers and presenting the majority view on a fringe topic. The Zeus analogy does not capture our situation, unless there are recent Oxford University Press volumes dedicated to paganism's trojan horse. Merzul (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Looie, but we ignore all credentials. And i helped write and bring to FA status Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and I am not a geologist/paleontologist/dinosaur geek.  All that matters is reliable sources that verify statements.  And if you read WP:NPOV, nowhere does it state that we are to give "balance."  In fact, if there are reliable sources that says this group is a bunch of boneheads, we'll use it.  The fact are these:  very few scientists signed this thing.  Many retracted their signature.  And the vast preponderance of scientists accept Evolution as a fact.  And as for being a "fan" of evolution?  Not sure how to reply.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific question
Orangemarlin, let's get more specific and discuss the sentence Looie mentioned. I would like to have your opinion about the following: "By promoting a perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community, whereas in fact evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science, the list is used to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, including "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science"."

Is the italicized sentence about evolution being "supported by science" need at this point and how does it impact the article? I'm not sure, but this is worth thinking about. Merzul (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "Darwinism"
Okay, let me defer that point for the moment, for something that might be a bit easier to deal with. Can we please get rid of this paragraph?: ''The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists''. The statement that "Darwinism" is a pejorative term not used by scientists is simply false. If you do a search for it on Google Scholar, you will hit tons of modern papers by reputable scientists who use the term in a non-pejorative way. Gerald Edelman, a Nobel-prize winning biologist, even titled one of his books "Neural Darwinism".Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gerald Edelman is from an earlier generation of biologist who used Darwinism correctly. If I see the word Darwinism in a peer-reviewed paper on Evolution, I'd trust that it's being used correctly.  However, in general usage it is most definitely a pejorative term, because it is being used as an "ism" (Evolutionism is another one) that implies a religious doctrine, that is, Darwinism is a "belief set" for scientists.  I doubt you'll get support for a change here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the article Darwinism is a very good review of the word. Darwinism is considered a "subset" of evolution (that would be my own synthesis)--at the time of Darwin's life, numerous theories of living things were not available to him--mutation, cell theory, gene theory, etc.  I believe that Darwin hit upon Natural selection as the process that pushes "evolution."  Today, evolution is substantially more than natural selection.  As the article states, the use of the word depends on who is using it and in what context.  Specifically here, it is very much a pejorative term. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a pejorative term to creationists, there is no dispute about that. But that doesn't make those two sentences true.  I claim that they are verifiably false.  Here is how to verify it:  observe that Jerry Edelman is an active scientist, and that "Neural Darwinism" is a theory that he currently defends.  If you accept that as true, then you are accepting that ... are not used by scientists to refer to current theories...  is false, and that ... employed only by creationists... is false.  If you try to to reformulate those sentences in a way that makes them factually correct, I think you will find that you can't do it without making them sound silly.Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on context. We have found literally thousands of references where Darwinism is used pejoratively.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you both agree with the following? The text in the article might need to be slightly tweaked to be more precise about this, but do you both agree with this distinction? Merzul (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is fair to use Darwinism as a synonym for "natural selection". Hence, Neural Darwinism is not pejorative.
 * 2) Referring to modern theories of biological evolution as "Darwinism" is pejorative.


 * Depends on who is talking. Firstly, out of interest, Neural Darwinism was published in 1989. Times have changed. So You Want to be an Anti-Darwinian makes the point that Darwinism means different things to different people at different times. In genetics it means the so-called "central dogma" of the inability of information about the state of the body to be reverse transcribed back into the genes, because that view was first proposed by an arch-Darwinian, August Weismann, in the 1880s. Weismann disagreed with Darwin, who thought that "use and disuse interitance" was probably true. More significantly, as this sets out, "The term "Darwinism" is mainly used by anti-evolutionists, "just as a synonym for evolution, because Darwin is a well-known figure," he suggests. "And often they use 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'atheism.'" In other words, the term has been appropriated by religionists who need a straw dog to burn–a means to pigeonhole and dehumanize scientists and science teachers who don't fall into place behind the Biblical story of creation." – dave souza, talk 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good article, but not a very authoritative source. But in this case it's quite easy to check out the story for yourself.  Go into Google Scholar, go to "Advanced Scholar Search", type "darwinism" as search term and set the year range to, say, 2000-2008.  See what you get.  Not more than 20% on the first few pages use the term in a derogatory way, and that's a very generous estimate.  There are, to be sure, books like "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" by Behe, which is a defense of creationism; but there are more books like "The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation, and Progress in Evolutionary Biology" by Shanahan (2004), which is straight biology, published by Cambridge U Press, one of the most prestigious scientific publishers.  It's just simply a misunderstanding that there is anything intrinsically derogatory in the word, any more than in words like Behaviorism, Capitalism, or Buddhism.  Let me be clear:  I'm personally not so keen on the term.  (See, which I think is pretty strong.) I'm just saying that lots of scientists continue to use it in ways that have no intention whatsoever of being derogatory.Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think this is a very good reasons to at least tweak the sentence. I went ahead and tried something to avoid the broad and universal assertion. Is everyone happy? Merzul (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nearly happy! The relationship to the creation-evolution controversy is valid, and that's why derogatory use is centred in the US. To make it clearer, I've tweaked it to show that derogatory use is by creationists. The term has covered a range of ideas since it was first coined by Huxley, and out of interest The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation, and Progress in Evolutionary Biology uses the term quite correctly as a reference to the historical development of the idea – "This is a thoughtful and clearly written book that serves as a fine introduction to the ways in which evolutionary thought has itself evolved since the time of Darwin." from Amazon. As you'll know, Cambridge U Press is in Cambridgeshire, not Massachusetts, and the term has remained more common in the UK. However, even Richard Dawkins (of Oxford U) who has kept using the term, was apparently persuaded by the stushie about a certain movie earlier this year to avoid the term in future. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins and darwinism

 * I've removed what seemed to me to be original research cited to a Youtube video of copyrighted material, which in my understanding is not acceptable. Dawkins used the term Darwinism or neo-Darwinism until recently, but my understanding is that he uses it for natural selection, rather than evolution as a whole. . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, "your understanding" would be original research. Please read Dawkin's book and view the video before you comment. That being said, if you object to the CITATION, why was that deleted after it was corrected? BTW, to inform any new-comers, the cite to the You-Tube tv documentary came from the RD Wiki-worship-cite. I changed it to the standard ISBN reference. Why was that objectionable? Don't you like what Richard said? DannyMuse (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, you were correct, the citation was from the Blind Watchmaker page. I must have clicked onto it off the RD page and forgotten. Thanks for following up. That being said, I am still waiting to hear your rationale for objecting to the standard ISBN reference. DannyMuse (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS and WP:OR. If you have a secondary or tertiary reliable source (as opposed to a primary source) that equates the two phrases, then by all means add it in.  Wikipedia policies are quite clear on what constitutes original research and the use of primary sources.  Shot info (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Danny, as Shot info correctly states, your claim that Dawkins uses "Darwinism" to mean evolution generally rather than by natural selection is original research in that you're projecting a meaning onto Dawkins' words, without a reliable secondary source making that connection. You should also note that the film and the book date from more than twenty years ago, as is obvious from the appearance of young professor Dawkins. He's now retired, and like others of his generation still thinks of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as rather prestigious terms. The book and film came out in Britain, and up to about three years ago creationism was seen there as some crazy American issue that didn't affect Britain. Have a look at the famous Bank of England tenner, and imagine that design on a US dollar note. However, science is international, and there's wide recognition that the term is confusing and outdated, even apart from its misuse by creationists. See the cited articles, and this more recent example. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, how does one scientist using it an undocumented number of times mean that we cannot say that scientists as a whole "hardly ever" use it, per a reliable source? To try and put this more clearly: If one scientist uses it occasionally, and a hundred never do, that one scientist is the exception, not the rule. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, it sounds like you're saying that opponents of evolution use the term "Darwinism" in a similar way to "Creationism" by those with the opposite point of view, to pigeon-hole and marginalize. What I mean by this, for example, is that not all ID proponents self-identify as young-earth creationists, and others are not even deists, yet they will generally be lumped together in popular discourse (particularly the media) as "creationists."


 * BTW, thanks for the link to the Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism article by Olivia Judson. Very interesting stuff, but I was a little surprised that an evolutionary biologist would make the imprecise and inaccurate statement that "natural selection is the only creative force in evolution". -- DannyMuse (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good sources on this are:

The term "Darwinism" is historical, as is "Neo-Darwinism". The current evolutionary theory is termed the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim, could you please clarify the point you are hoping to make? At the risk of stating the obvious, this particular article is "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" not "A Scientific Dissent From Modern evolutionary synthesis". How are you suggesting the distinction you made above should inform this contributors of this article to their edits? -- DannyMuse (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm explaining the correct terminology. The lack of clarity in its choice of terms is a major drawback in the petition, as several sources already cited in this article point out. For example, I'd agree myself with the assertion that "Darwinism" can't explain the diversity of life, but would instead support the idea that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis can. One of the most important things in writing about science is to be absolutely clear what you mean by the terms you use, unfortunately this is something which this petition fails to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Tim, understood. Thanks! -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
OM - Please assume Good faith. I am not edit warring, merely trying to contribute. The cited source does NOT use the word "pejorative" and is therefore original research, which as was pointed out to me is a violation of WP:OR Please comment on content, not my person or activity. I'm just trying to follow your example. Also, please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Thank you. DannyMuse (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much original research, as a good faith attempt to concisely summarise the intended meaning of the source. As requested, I've changed that to reflect the source more closely. Also, parroting stock phrases to the regulars isn't impressive. Try to follow OM's reasoning, and note that your edits significantly changed the meaning, in contravention of WP:NPOV/FAQ policy. . . dave souza, talk 11:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually have no problem with "a good faith attempt to concisely summarise the intended meaning of the source." I believe this and all Wiki articles would benefit from common sense application of that principal. What is frustrating is that you seem to apply that principal inconsistently. When I added the comment regarding Dawkins' use of the word "Darwinism" you reverted it and ignored my request to find an acceptable wording. Yet your previous comment shows that you are very aware of Dawkins' ongoing use of the term. :


 * " ... even Richard Dawkins (of Oxford U) who has kept using the term . . ." dave souza, talk 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On that subject, (if you don't already know) you might be interested in the following:


 * A July 18, 2008 Times-Online interview with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.


 * Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. - DannyMuse (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Dawkins is one person, and, as far as I can tell, an extreme outlier. Phrases such as "even Richard Dawkins" implies that many, many scientists use it, which is not true, so far as I can tell. "Neo-Darwinism" is occasionally used, when discussing the history of evolutionary thought, as a synonym for the modern synthesis, but that's about it to my knowledge. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday on 11:24, August 1, 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker, sorry I can't help you. You'll have to ask dave souza what he was or wasn't implying when he wrote "even Richard Dawkins ... has kept using the term . . ." That was his comment, not mine.


 * I do have a question for you though, could you please clarify: In what way is Dawkins an "extreme outlier"? Am I to understand you that you think he is NOT influential on this subject? Thanks - DannyMuse (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, lad, you're really gone past debate and are getting into trolling. I'm not going to answer you anymore. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps you won't respond, but now I feel that I have to. I would encourage you to Assume Good Faith. I have tried without much success to engage other editors in meaningful discussion on the content of this article. My comments above had two purposes. First, to point out that you seem to have misattributed a comment to me which was actually made by dave souza; and, second, to request clarification of your meaning in your August 1, 2008 post. Is Richard Dawkins a credible party to this debate or not? What do you mean he is an "extreme outlier"? I believe this is relevant to the article for reasons to follow, read on ...


 * Indeed, I would really rather discuss the particular problems with the presentation of content on this page. As it is currently, it seems biased and is beginning to take on the appearance of a WP:COATRACK. My concerns are similar to those raised by Looie496 above. While it is perhaps true that "Darwinism" is used in a pejorative way by some, it is also used in a purely descriptive way by some/many scientists and philosophers. Richard Dawkins is one notable example of the former. I have made numerous attempts to include that in the article for balance, but instead of working with me to achieve that goal, a number of editors have summarily deleted and/or reverted this edits for, frankly, spurious and frequently inherently contradictory reasons. Also, no viable alternatives or suggestions for improvement are made, just deletions and reverts with knee-jerk quotes of various Wiki-policies. For what it's worth, my edits to this and related articles are attempts to improve the content and usability of Wikipedia. -- DannyMuse (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Entertaining as this is, and I now look forward to watching The Genius of Charles Darwin on Channel 4 hosted by Dick Dawkins, we've provided ample sources about the issue for this article. It's hardly surprising that a historical programme about Darwin's work will use the term, and it will be interesting to see what meanings crop up. Trust the Brits will be less confused than the Americans about these meanings. . . dave souza, talk 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement section of article
dave souza has previously made the point that this controversy is different in the US than in Britain (and generationally), at least insofar as the usage of the term "Darwinism" and its variants. The article does not presently reflect that. This is a problem. I would like to invite discussion on how to address that in a way that is in keeping with the appropriate Wikipedia core policies. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to say is essentially the same concerns to those raised by Looie496 above. While it is no doubt true that "Darwinism" is used in a pejorative way by some, it is also used in a purely descriptive way by some/many scientists and philosophers. Richard Dawkins is one notable example of the former. I have made numerous attempts to include that in the article for balance. Two of the objections that dave souza raised about Dawkins as an example of a prominent scientist who is well known for using the term "Darwinism" are that Dawkins is:


 * British and this is (in Dave's assessment) "seen there as some crazy American issue that didn't affect Britain"
 * Retired "and like others of his generation still thinks of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as rather prestigious terms."


 * The article does somewhat obliquely address the evolution of the meaning of the term "Darwinism", but it in no way addresses the geographic distinction asserted by dave souza. As such, the article is unbalanced. Does this clarify? DannyMuse (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep pushing the point on Darwinism, and it feels as though you're missing the point. Dawkins aside (and he has made recent public remarks that Darwinism may have to be dropped from his vocabulary), the issue is that the way the word is used in this petition is completely pejorative.  It makes it sound like Darwin is everything and anything that makes up the fact of Evolution, which is based upon thousand and thousands of scientific studies.  Darwinism has been hijacked to mean something it is mostly not.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm missing the point?!? C'mon! This article IS called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". That IS the point. Since you brought it up, could you please direct me to some links or sources regarding Dawkins' recent public remarks that Darwinism may have to be dropped from his vocabulary. I'd be interested in reading that. In fact, I'd genuinely appreciate that as I've not seem them.


 * Nevertheless, you still have not addressed the point that there are some/many scientists and philosophers that use the term "Darwinism" in a manner that is NOT pejorative. That should be included for balance according to WP:NPOV. I've made attempts at doing that, but they've all been summarily reverted. So I'm trying a different tact; I'm hoping to enlist the aid of the other editors--yourself included--that contribute to this article to see if they can do this. BTW--and only because I want to be sure you are clear that I am clear on this--not all dissenters from "Darwinism" disagree with evolution per se. The petition only mentions "Darwinian theory" in connection with "random mutation and natural selection" as associated mechanisms for evolutionary change. I believe the article errs in over-generalizing the objections stated in the petition. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably best to discuss this over in darwinism then rather than in this article, which as you have pointed out, is about a petition after all. Shot info (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SI, the trouble with that suggestion is that the issue has been raised here. If you'd like to address any of the specific items I've addressed above I would appreciate that. Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, over at that article per WP:TALK. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, where the issue was raised. Let's please Keep on topic per WP:TALK. Excellent reference, thanks! -- DannyMuse (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)