Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 6

Contents of the disputed 'Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document'
My conclusion is that this new section serves no purpose. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "The document is maintained and updated by the Discovery Institute. As of January 2010 update to the document there were over 700 signatories to "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"." is largely duplicative of material already in the lead.
 * 2) "There were 38 fellows of the Discovery Institute as of January 2011, several of which were signatories as of the 2010 update maintained by the organization." is unsourced.
 * 3) "Per the Discovery Institute Maintained Website. 'Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:'" this is inaccurate, and thus "unduly self-serving" WP:SELFPUB (even assuming it was correctly sourced to the DI website).
 * 4) "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." -- duplicative of the 'Statement' section.
 * 5) "In spite of the requirement to hold either a Ph.D or M.D. degree there are exceptions that have been permitted to sign the document." is almost certainly WP:OR.

That website is maintained by the Discovery Institute. The section serves a purpose in that this article appears to bury these facts or completely omit them consistent with the biased diatribe it truly is. Click "Contact" at the website "http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org" and the contact headquarters are:

Discovery Institute 208 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104

Phone Numbers: Voice: (206) 292-0401 Fax: (206) 682-5320

So there is no doubt that site belongs to and is maintained by that organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the section 'buries' the DI's involvement in the opening bleeding sentence' -- very subtle. It likewise buries the number of signatories in the lead and buries the dissent statement by giving it its own entire section! Have a WP:TROUT and get a bleeding clue! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

All disputed items in the section have been removed. A link to the website and exact quote is present. Nothing but exact quotes. And since this article is supposedly about this list there is no higher purpose I can conceive than that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. "All disputed items in the section have" NOT been removed. The Discovery Institute is at best a WP:QS (with a long reputation for misrepresentation and dishonesty), and the statement is demonstrably false, so is clearly "unduly self-serving" and thus in violation of WP:SELFANDQUEST. The list is discussed by third party sources (per Wikipedia policy) elsewhere -- particularly the 'Affiliations and credentials' section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One last observation about this article. The article appears to be more of a diatribe against the "Discovery Institute Organization" and NOT about the document titled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

I came to this page looking for information regarding this document I read about elsewhere. Just to find junk diatribe I had to wade through. But little about this document is present or the people signing. Just massive amounts of information coming from someone bent on discrediting this organization called "Discovery Institute". And while my research does confirm they maintain the document I see no reason for the diatribe against the organization here. It's out of context. It's interesting the organization has so many critics and maybe an article dedicated to that would be useful. However, this article should be MUCH MUCH more concise on to the point about the document in question. Most of the people signing the document don't even appear as "fellows" of that organization. So discrediting the organization to discredit the document is really a fallacy that I can see.

I recommend, shorten it to the concise article is should rightly be. Move most of this content to another article where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mikearion-the-incapable-of-signing: Wikipedia reports what reliable third parties state about a topic, NOT what the topic's rather disreputable creator lies about it, and NOT what you want written. Come up with some reliable third party sources, and people might see you as something other than simply a disruption. And LEARN HOW TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! I am SICK TO BLOODY DEATH of the edit conflicts your laziness inevitably causes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So what in that section is now being disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ASKED AND ANSWERED: "The Discovery Institute is at best a WP:QS (with a long reputation for misrepresentation and dishonesty), and the statement is demonstrably false, so is clearly "unduly self-serving" and thus in violation of WP:SELFANDQUEST." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discovery Institute is the undisputed author of that document. If they are WP:QS then what sources can we use to support this article at all. If not the authors of the document titled by the article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ASKED AND ANSWERED: "reliable third party" sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Discovery website was listed as a source when I arrive at this article.

Further This article violates "Neutral point of view" nothing neutral going here. And this conversation prove that out. Wow.

Community guidelines clearly state that: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

This article doesn't even come close to neutrality. It's clearly a diatribe against an organization called "The Discovery Institute" that are the authors or commissioners of the document. About every reference to any person signing the document is made to discredit the person.

FURTHER TO PROVE MY POINT ABOUT BIAS:

The article states: "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community".

However, the document makes no claims whatsoever but consists of one concise statement not drawing any conclusions. So how in the world could the "scientific community" have rejected claims the document doesn't even make? The only thing in the document are signatures and this statement of skepticism.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural of life. Careful examination of the selection to account for the complexity evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The people that appear to control and maintain this article clearly do so with OVERWHELMING bias. And they should not be editing this article knowing they have that bias it's a clear violation of basic community guidelines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Mikearion the Preceding unsigned (sign your bleeding comments!) read WP:NPOV more carefully. At WP:DUE it states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If all the reliable sources (and especially the prominent ones) say one thing, then Wikipedia will not state anything else -- no matter how much you or the DI would like it to be otherwise. On the matter of rejection by the scientific community, I would suggest that the unequivocal acceptance of evolution by dozens of scientific organisations is indeed a "rejection" of the Dissent's anti-evolution message. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of the WP:NPOV ignores the point of representing ALL significant viewpoints, not just the most supported one (or the one you like) as long as the sources are reliable on the issue. The message is also not anti-evolution. The fact you think it is suggests you are thinking dogmatically. The signed statement is broadly in keeping with excellent scientific integrity. As a matter of fact, ALL scientists should have been expected to sign this statement. The fact that it gets this much hatred from people shows that, on evolution, nobody is treating it as part of science but more of a religion. An article about such a statement should not be so negative, yet it is. --72.27.11.196 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the WP:NPOV ignores the point of representing ALL significant viewpoints, not just the most supported one (or the one you like) as long as the sources are reliable on the issue. The message is also not anti-evolution. The fact you think it is suggests you are thinking dogmatically. The signed statement is broadly in keeping with excellent scientific integrity. As a matter of fact, ALL scientists should have been expected to sign this statement. The fact that it gets this much hatred from people shows that, on evolution, nobody is treating it as part of science but more of a religion. An article about such a statement should not be so negative, yet it is. --72.27.11.196 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Impartial tone:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank for quoting policy without actually demonstrating how the article violates it (and for failing to sign your comment -- yet again -- is the "~" key on your keyboard broken?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well do whatever you like with this article. It's a sad thing to see here at wikipedia. At least remove this obviously false statement at the beginning.

The article states: "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community".

There are NO claims in the document for the "scientific community" to reject. And a single organization is not "the scientific community".

If you cannot see any bias in this diatribe (I mean article) then what can I say?

Using wikipedia for an agenda is in insult to everyone that contributes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) ~

My observation of this article and the people protecting it they have some kind of agenda regarding the document. The document consists of a single very concise statement. But this article is anything but concise, full of diatribes pointed at the organization that commissioned the document. Most of this content belongs in another article and should be moved. At most this article deserves three or four paragraphs which links to other related information and wikipedia articles. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly silly: Unless and until you actually develop the MOST BASIC COMPETENCE to (i) sign your comments & (ii) cite reliable third party sources in support of your claims, I really don't give the proverbial "pair of fetid dingo's kidneys" about your "observation"s. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sign your bleeding comments.
 * 2) The only "false statement" in the article is you demonstrably false "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences"
 * 3) The Dissent makes a fairly obvious implied claim that the "Darwinian theory" of evolution is in some way inadequate.
 * 4) Liar, liar, pants on fire: it is not "a single organization" -- it is dozens of organisations (and I think you'd have trouble finding an organisation dissenting).
 * 5) All I "see" is somebody, who appears neither able to read the article, nor able to sign his own comments, saying "diatribe" over and over and over again, without any substantiation.
 * 6) What can you "say"? You can either cite some reliable third-party sources supporting a more charitable view of this petition or hold your peace.

Look. Respectfully, it's not the job of wikipedia to form personal opinions or forward agendas.

1.) The Website containing the quote about signatory qualifications is copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009. It's their document and their quote. What is disputed? Remove your "factual accuracy is disputed" we both know this information is 100% accurate, and sourced to the document's authors. You know it, I know it and the whole world deserves to know.

2.) Clearly the document confirms there is a dispute by certain qualified scientists regarding this subject. THIS IS NOT wikipedia's dispute.

3.) The document makes no claims whatsoever that need to be refuted in this article. Refutation of the Discovery Institute and signatories needs to go into the article about that organization or those people. Links to those articles here is warranted and useful.

4.)The following sections: "Responses" & "Expertise relevance" & "Other criticisms" & "Affiliations and credentials" & "Defections and disagreements" & "Counter-petitions" ARE ALL written as criticisms of Discovery Institute. That's a diatribe by any measure and off topic.

5.) There is only one section in this article not written as a diatribe. "Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document" merely gives a few sentences of facts regarding the document and sourced directly to the authors. I suspect the ONLY reason you are disputing it is because it's not a diatribe against the document. It just is.

Look at all the sources, all are from critics of that organization. I merely quote the document's author, and get jumped. And then I get the absurd assertion the document's author is not a reliable source? Does someone have a higher claim than the author?

Clean it up. People can see through these diatribes anyway, especially something as over-the-top as this is. It's doesn't even pretend to be without bias. This article deserves at best two or three concise paragraphs. Keeping it real the critics deserve one section not the whole article. lol. Mikearion (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We can use quotes from their site without putting copyright info directly after. I believe this is allowed via Fair Use. I agree that we should more clearly say that it is their claim that the qualifications are accurate, that there are known exceptions to that claim, and so on. However, we need to source that info, not assert it as though it is the conclusions of a wikipedia editor. Those are the primary grounds on which I reverted your edit... but I agree with it in theory. Regarding your other points...
 * 2) Our reliable sources say this isn't the case, at least in any notable way. We therefore are allowed to report that the DI claims it's so, but we have an obligation to state that it's not accepted within the scientific community as being legitimate. WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE are two relevant policies here.
 * 4) Not exactly. These concern the article topic specifically, and do belong.
 * 6) The DI holds a fringe pseudoscientific view regarding Intelligent Design, of which this list is a part. Policy indicates that we have to give proper weight to the accepted scientific response to that view. It so happens to be that the response is largely critical, so it's to be expected that most of the article will be critical. If this seems unfair to you, you may be interested in discussing it further at the talk page for WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, or, most likely WP:FTN. Jess talk&#124;edits 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I put the copyright in is because someone keeps disputing the source of the quote. If Discovery hold the copyright they own the quote. And yes fair use allows us to use the quote. It clearly belong in this article. Mikearion (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't dispute there are many critics of Discovery Institute. However, this article is about a document not Discovery Institute and thus is off topic for the article. Mikearion (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Another piece by Wikipedia that obeys WP:NPOV...
Its interesting that the article mentions that the list is rejected by the scientific community but offers no evidence or relevant citation. Its only irrelevant citation implies that a small group of people can arbitrarily speak for the entire scientific community, and leaves out the fact that the signers of the list themselves are members of the scientific community. As for the claim that some of the scientist listed are not active scientist anymore, is a little surprising since Eugenie Scott director of the NCSE and one of the most out spoken critics of the "Dissent from Darwin" list, as well as being one of the brain child's of the Steve list, is also not an active scientist herself, and hasn't been one for many years.

I also find it very interesting that this same scientific community that supposedly rejects this list and the Discovery Institute, is at least a part of that same scientific community that was supposedly dumb enough into being duped into signing a list entitle "Dissent from Darwinism" (which in itself should give one a clue) and put out by the same Discovery Institute its supposedly has also rejected. I'm not sure why Wikipedia would choose to point out that "Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States" without specifying the relevance of such a statement. What I find really amusing is that after all this bickering about which scientific field is qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, it then goes on to say that "The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community" So it seems to imply any scientist in the scientific community that endorses the neo Darwinian synthesis is qualified to do so authoritatively, but when it comes to dissenters only American biologist are relevant. Now if that really isn't the cats meow let me quote from this very same publication on an article about the same theory of Evolution and it goes as follows......"Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine" Does anyone see any restrictions on evolution to only biology? Another substandard article that doesn't pass the smell test. To the Management of Wikipedia, stop allowing the authors of these article to playing sides, and just give us the information we research unbiasedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So your argument against this article is basically a conspiracy theory that all these scientific organisations have been hijacked, against the wishes of the majority of their membership, by a small 'Evil Darwinist Conspiracy™'. The signers amount to a tiny minority of the academic community (cf Project Steve), few of whom have a qualification in a field relevant to evolutionary biology, and many of whom are not even scientists (mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, at least one economist and one butterfly photographer). Unless you can present evidence that this article misrepresents the scientific consensus against ID in general, and this thoroughly unscientific 'Dissent' in particular, you would appear to be just WP:SOAPBOXing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Another voice, I come to Wikipedia to find information about a topic. This article is not information about the phenomena of the list of 700 intelligent people who dissagree publicly with Darwinian evolution as popularly understood, this article is a major attempt to belittle, discredit, and tar with a broad brush the List. I wouldn't mind an article that: a.) Started with the facts that this List exists. b.)  The history of how it came to be and has been made public. c.) What the supporters of the List claim it means. d.)  Then what opponents of the List complain about it, and their criticisms noted (but perhaps not eagerly defended with paragraph long quotes?). e.) Some sort of evaluation of its significance, or lack of significance to the ID movement and to the anti-ID movements.

Instead from the first paragraph, this article is in tone and volume an attempt to discredit the makers, the signers, and the validity for any intelligent group of people (PhDs) to question Darwinian orthodoxy. If I read for example an article on something I disagree with like Mormonism, I expect to read first about its claims and what its proponents suggest for it. Then I am prepared to read about what anti-Mormons object to and quesion or dispute, then perhaps how Mormonism answers those disputes.

In this article all I read is multiple criticisms of the List, with minimal exposure to the proponents of the List. This article feels like it was written by Richard Dawkins, or Eugenie Scott. It is not fair, balanced, or unbiased by any possible standard. Please give us an article with both sides. Pretending that there is only one side to truth is the beginning of the monomania this article displays.Jhoehn (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

--Most pages on ID, ID proponents and ID think tanks, organizations on wikipedia are more biased attack pieces than neutral articles explaining its subject. I'd probably be labeled an ID apologist, creationist or fundamentalist just for saying that but fact is I'm none of those things and have no religious affiliation. However, I did visit the ID wiki page to see what ID is all about and I could not because that page, at least when I visited, did not explain what it is and what it's proponents claim but rather ranted on why it is wrong. Same thing with many articles of ID proponents like Dembski; it says nothing of Dembski's career, work and ideas but rather represents his ideas and work through the eyes of those who attack him as if they're objective and agenda free in their claims about him. This wiki article is similarly biased, spending no time laying out why the Petition's authors dissent or presenting their perspective in any objective, neutral way but rather spends about a third setting the dissenters up as ideologically-driven manipulators and liars who misuse terms and fabricate confusing petitions, citing the opinion of opponents as proof, and the rest of the article basically presents rebuttals to the Petition. For example, it says 'Darwinism' is 'a term "intelligent design proponents" use to refer to evolution,' and cites as evidence for this claim opponents of ID. However, Darwinism, Darwinian and similar terms are commonly used by secular and atheist scientists and opponents of ID, including evolutionary biologists like Dawkins. The article claims the Petition was circulated to discredit evolution, again citing ID opponents as sources for this claim. However, the purpose of the Petition is not to discredit anything but the idea that the current evolutionary model is beyond reproach. Sure dissent may be minimal but mass support for something does not mean it is correct. Similarly, ID proponents and organizations, like the Discovery Institute, throughout the article are represented not from a neutral perspective but from the biased eyes of their opponents. Take this example: "The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..." Of course the claim that they are "confusing and misleading" is made by ID opponents whose opinions and views are presented throughout this article as if they themselves are free of ideological/philosophical biases. However, this article cites, among others, PZ Myers, a man who calls Francis Collins "a clown" and "a flaming idjit," yes that's how he spelled it, and questioned his qualifications as a legitimate scientist and challenged his appointment as NIH director just for being Christian. This despite nothing in the history of Collins' professional career on which doubts for about his integrity or qualifications may be rationally placed. There are, of course, further examples showing this article to be an attack piece but it's pointless to go on since it won't change a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.216.229 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE for discussion of how to present such views in a neutral way. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WP policy or at least the interpretation of editors such as Dave Souza, or Hrafn, need to be reevaluated if multiple posters are issuing complaints that they can not simply learn what the actual article subject is about before being bombarded with religiously motivated anti-ID propaganda.

184.153.187.119 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We get complaints like this on every article which touches a religious or controversial subject; it's not indicative of a problem with the article. If you think our policies should be changed, you should bring that up on the policy talk page (say WT:FRINGE) or at the village pump. I also shortened the section title. Please keep section titles brief enough to be useful. Thanks  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references to 'neo-creationism'.
"Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,714 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Undid revision 566614355 by Gnu Ordure (talk). No good reason for this change, and it's the exact language from the source.)"

DV, if you didn't understand the reason I gave for my edit, you could have asked me to explain.

First, bear in mind that this article doesn't require this quote from Robert Pennock. He is cited as a representative of the scientific community, so another quote from another representative would be an acceptable alternative. However, I chose not to replace his problematic quote, I've just edited it in order to remove the problem.

Here's the problem:

I was discussing this Wikipedia article with some Christians, and they said that the article was biased because it used pejorative terms such as 'neo-creationism'.

Personally I'd never heard the term before, even though I've been following the creationism/ID debate for twenty years. But the WP article on neo-creationism says that "Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term".

OK? Now consider that the term neo-creationism is unnecessary. For instance, it doesn't occur in the rest of this article, only in the quote by Pennock.

Therefore, I agreed with my Christian friends; the use of the quote by Pennock was unnecessarily confrontational and evidence of bias.

I could have removed the quote entirely and replaced it with another one from someone else, but I chose to simply edit it to remove the references to neo-creationism. The gist of the passage is essentially the same, and Pennock is still quoted accurately.

That's the reason for my edit, DV.

Give me a good reason why I shouldn't re-instate it.

Gnu Ordure (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The term "neo-creationist" is used by reliable sources to refer to this movement. Whether your Christian friends find the term offensive is purely their problem, not ours. We go by the terminology used in reliable sources. Your edit removed also the specificity of the quote to some "people such as". For that matter, Intelligent Design proponents dislike being called creationists. And the American Freedom Party hates being called a white supremicist party. That doesn't mean anything here, and our articles on them reflect the usage in the reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For a policy basis, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The only references to neo-creationism in the entire article are in the quote from Pennock. Therefore, it is obviously not necessary to refer to neo-creationism at all, and so WP quoting Pennock can be reasonably perceived by Christians to be aggressive and confrontational.

And I agree with them. That's how it looks to me too. And I'm not a Christian.

My edit doesn't change what Pennock was saying, it merely removes an unnecessary contentious term.

I don't understand why you're objecting to such a minor edit, DV. It's not a big deal, it's about semantics rather than statements of fact. Gnu Ordure (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your version is clumsy and not justified by our policies. You have not convinced me at all the the usage is unnecessarily contentious. Again, whether certain people or you yourself consider it offensive is completely immaterial as far as our policies are concerned. We don't bowdlerize articles to spare the sensivities of people who cannot deal with reality. For us, reality us what appears in reliable independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gnu, you've got it a bit wrong: Robert T. Pennock isn't cited as a representative of the scientific community, he's cited as a philosopher and an academic expert on philosophy of science, evolution, and the history of creationism. His published works are clear on this development of neo-creationism, a pretence that beliefs are science rather than religion. Both creationism and neo-creationism are opposed by a majority of Christians. Wikipedia shows minority views in the context of expert opinion, not in terms preferred by the minority. . dave souza, talk 22:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DV, I don't edit Wiki very much, so I'm a bit confused at your usage of the first person plural: "our policies", "We don't bowdlerize", etc.

Are you a moderator here, with some kind of authority over me? With the power to reverse my edits, if you want to?

"You have not convinced me at all the the usage is unnecessarily contentious." - See above. Why do I have to convince you, DV? Who made you king? Or moderator.

I've given you a good reason for making an edit which eliminates a potential point of contention without altering the original intent of the quote. It's a win-win, everybody's happy with it. Pennock's point is made, possible pejorative terms are avoided, Christians are happy, what's not to like?

Why are you so unhappy with this solution, DV? Why are you objecting to it so vehemently? I don't get it. Gnu Ordure (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I gave you a policy based reason and so did Dave Souza. You provided none. The rest of your comments are uncivil. Do not edit war. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And you failed to answer my reasonable questions as to your status on this site. You then complain that I've been uncivil, without evidence. And you issue orders, as if you were authorized to do so.

In the circumstances, I would like to refer this dispute to an actual WP moderator. Could some impartial reader tell me how to do that? Thanks. Gnu Ordure (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not a "moderator', nor did I claim to be. You "have to convince me" because of WP:CONSENSUS. The only "order" I have given you is not to edit war, which all WP editors are entitled to do. You can try administrator talk:Mann_jess. He's familiar with this topic, and is probably the most understanding and patient administrator you will meet. In fact, he's edited this page before. He's the only adminstrator that has edited it in the last two years, as far as I can tell. However, be prepared to make your case based on WP policies and reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930032420/http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf to http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729032153/http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm to http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Way too much bias in this article to be wikipedia
This article is really bad for wikipedia. Just read it. It's reads hit piece that could have been been written by "National Center for Science Education". Hardly an impartial organization in this dispute.

To write an article that contains a known controversy you need to turn off your bias and come at it like a true journalist. Wikipedia is not a forum for polemical disputes.

To the owner of this article. I don't have time to fix this article or engage in edit wars over polemical ideology. The first sentence that caught my attention was "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community."

The words "scientific community" I then find merely means "National Center for Science Education".

So I checked the degrees held by the people in that organization and found their degrees are no greater or more authoritative than the degrees held by people that signed the decent document. So how does how does the "National Center for Science Education" = equal the entire scientific community as claimed in this article?

To start with the sentence "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community." SHOULD BE CHANGED TO "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the National Center for Science Education."

That's just for starters. This article is a mess and not wikipedia at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is condescending, treating the almost 1,000 scientists with Ph.D's who signed the document as if they were children who were duped by creationists manufacturing dissent. A neutral rewrite is called for in the interest of truth and fair play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.201.217 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mikearion: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) First read National Center for Science Education and then peruse the DI's list of staff and fellows. Guess which organisation counts as a WP:RS on matters of science.
 * 2) Wikipedia does not "come at it like a true journalist", because Wikipedia refuses to give equal validity to every half-baked crank, unlike 'true' (truly witless or truly spineless?) journalists.
 * 3) Wikipedia articles have no WP:OWNER.
 * 4) Read List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. The scientific community has rejected ID, it has done so for years, it has done so in great detail.
 * 5) The claim that you inserted into the article that "As of the January 2010 update to the list all signatories held either a Ph.D or both Ph.D and M.D. degrees" is WP:BOLLOCKS. Bernard d'Abrera is still on the list, and he ain't got no PhD.

From mikearion back at you:

THIS ARTICLE NOTHING BUT A DIATRIBE!!! This is not wikipedia I'm sorry.


 * No, this is most certainly Wikipedia, giving WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs that state that the petition lacks scientific legitimacy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

However, you are correct Bernard d'Abrera has two Bachelor of Arts and was allowed to sign due to his being a highly regarded scientist. The only exception I see on the list. Correct the section and put it back in, note any exceptions. Why are you attempting hide the fact there are over 700 Ph.Ds that signed this document? WHY? If not due to some very extreme bias on your part???


 * d'Abrera is only the most blatant example -- last I checked there was at least one economist in there, as well as numerous philosophers, mathematicians and engineers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You should NOT be contributing to this article if you don't think wikipedia should not engage in bias. And clearly you ARE very biased so check yourself or please check out of wikipedia. You do a great disservice to the community by doing this.
 * Read WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia has an explicit bias in favour of consensus/majority expert views and against fringe and pseudoscientific views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I never even heard of the list and came here to find out about it only to find a massive diatribe. What the hell?


 * Politiely ask specific questions and you may get an answer -- "massive diatribe. What the hell?" just makes people want to show you the door. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to the list. I found that over 700 Ph.Ds signed the list the vast majority of which are not members of Discovery. Why is that section removed?


 * According to a NYT piece (cited in the article) most are religious conservatives and few have qualifications relevant to evolution. In any case 700 is a mere drop in the ocean -- see Project Steve for example. The section was removed because its sourcing failed WP:SELFPUB: "unduly self-serving". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And why remove the signatory link and information? I cannot think of anything basic to the article than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSLINKS -- links go in references & external links sections. The list is already there, the "information" is demonstrably inaccurate and so not included. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A New York Times Piece? LOL, your killing me these people are PH.Ds in BIOLOGY and other sciences. I didn't know that "religious conservatives" with Ph.Ds are not as good as ? with Ph.Ds? I would venture to say most Ph.Ds belong to one religion or another. So what's you point. Leave the signatory section IT's HIGHLTY RELEVANT as this article is about that list is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NYT: see WP:RS. "these people are PH.Ds in BIOLOGY and other sciences" -- no they don't. The vast majority do not have a degree in biology. The majority do not have a degree in a field even related to evolutionary biology. And many of them do not even have a degree in a sicentific discipline (engineering, maths, philosophy and even economics). My (and the NYT's) point is that their support for this petition was demonstrated to be religious not scientific. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What you personally think the credentials are or are not is irrelevant. You do not have the authoritative judgement to rule out a source only because it disagrees with your personal standing. You are ruling out sources only because they do not fit with your consideration of qualifications, which is irrelevant. By forcibly removing this information, you are essentially sweeping it under the rug and hiding it like secret police. If you stood for truth at all, you would allow the content and statements that go against your beliefs to show and let people sort it for themselves.

The reason they do not have degree fields related to "evolutionary biology" is because no such thing exists. There is no degree or specific study with any regards to evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.131.243 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Doing a find search on the list finds at least a hundred in biology others in related fields such as genetics. But what does that have to do with anything? Per their listing a requirement a Ph.D in the natural sciences is what they are looking form. Or M.D. Professors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

mikearion, this is to be expected. It demonstrates exactly why wikipedia is sometimes regarded as unreliable source for many things. Definitely shows why some teachers will tell students not to use wikipedia as a source (though using sources from wikipedia articles is ok). Wikipedia has taken a stance on this issue and any article of this type or related is either lacking in information, lacking in objectivity or a mixture of both. I try to post on some of these article talk pages but really, I know it is how its going to be. The unfortunate thing is that wikipedia rules seem to support their behaviour. Eventually other wiki sites will replace it if this continues. Just takes time. --72.27.11.196 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, this is exactly what I was thinking. This is incredible. I've never seen anything like it before on wiki. I was reading it and wondering what was so weird about it until I realised it sounded virtually as if it was penned by every anti-creationist site I've ever read. This is the suckiest neutrality I've ever seen. Please fix. -- SuperMudz (Sorry if there's something magic I'm supposed to do here, but I've never posted before I don't think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.122.72 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree fully with the original poster. This stinks of bias isn't written from a neutral point of view. About half of the introduction may have some justification in a criticism section, but doesn't belong in the main article. --41.150.97.64 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024155814/http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm to http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531055952/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411085856/http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php to http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604112819/http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html to http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813204436/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)