Talk:Critical Analysis of Evolution

This is a very long introduction. Perhaps it should be shortened and the relevant issues given their own heading? Twipie 05:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the revert?
FeloniusMonk, I think you should explain quite quickly why you reverted the amendments I made, particularly since you hid your reasons for the reversion with accusations of "reverting significant viewpoint and weasle words". I changed virtually none of the content of the article in my edit, merely the order and structure, so such an accusation is extremely unfriendly!

Since I consider my revisions to be a significant improvement over the original, with it's extremely lengthy introduction and repeated information, I will revert back to my version later today unless you can give me a good reason why not. GDallimore 10:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because a significant viewpoint appeared to be deleted and WP:BOLD says that at controversial topics discuss substantial changes on talk before making them. After looking more closely I'm not certain that the viewpoint indeed deleted so I've reverted myself and will improve your version. My apologies if I was wrong. FeloniousMonk 07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For future reference, don't forget the bit further down that page concerning WP:BOLD. On a more constructive note, you mention the removal of a major viewpoint. Looking at the shortened introduction myself a bit more carefully, I think I do see something that is missing and could serve to balance the introduction better. Let me try an edit to improve. GDallimore 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link
The Wedge doc link is bad.Pasado 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a fix, but it's an external reference.Pasado 06:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Subscript text

New source
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:
 * Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"


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


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

Odd nature (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a supporter of the ToE, I find it odd that anyone should see any danger in opening up debate on neo-Evolutionary Theory in the schools. Debate will only make the ToE stronger. This paranoia about "opening up the schools" is sad and misguided.--TDurden1937 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Association
Does it seem to anyone else that this page reads like a 'Response to Intelligent Design' type page? It seems to be heavily invested into psychological detective work to uncover the nefarious scheming of the Discovery Institute, but without the evidence, or even relevance.

Just for an example:

"The Discovery Institute insists that Critical Analysis of Evolution is not another attempt to open the door of public high school science classrooms for intelligent design, and hence supernatural explanations. Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin in February 2006 coined the term "false fear syndrome" of those who said it was, and said:

This is simply another instance of Darwinists attempting to oppose critical analysis of evolution by pretending that it is equivalent to teaching intelligent design. This is a political tactic based upon misinformation, misrepresentation, emotions, and false fears."[14]

In July 2006 on the blog of Discovery Institute Fellow and leading intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski, Dembski's research assistant and co-moderator of the site, Joel Borofsky, contradicted the Discovery Institute's statements:

My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because "we don't know how to teach philosophy". It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it's wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin's theory because, "even if it is weak, it's still the best theory out there."[15]"

I think a false connection has been applied here. Joel Borofsky expressed his desire to see his state teach ID. There was no reference in his statement that that was the described purpose of 'Critical Analysis of Evolution', or that it even had intentions along that line.

Even if it is his wish that Critical Analysis paves the way for introducing ID, it's still an irrelevant 'guilt by association' tactic. Teaching ID is not part of the brief. His personal opinions cannot influence that, no matter how nefarious. Another way to say it. I might be ecstatic that the enthusiasm of vanilla lovers has left a surplus of chocolate ice-cream at the store. That's not because I think thoughts of terrible violence toward vanilla in the late of night. I just happen to really like chocolate ice-cream.

Also, whether it's an attempt to 'open the door for ID' seems like a bad bit of englishing, since it's kind of an indirect attack by extraneous motivations. It should perhaps be 'is not another attempt to teach ID'. Because why would a dude who supports ID feel bad or object if a legitimate policy 'opened the door' for ID? Isn't that sort of a silly inference? Are they supposed to be held guilty and accountable if schools started teaching ID because the Critical Analysis so destroyed their faith in evolution?

Just like you can't bar evolution from being taught on the basis that it might incidentally cause people to lose belief in God.

(And it's completely adorable how out of the whole internet, the cited 'contradiction' was an offhand comment he made on some podcast link. Maybe he needs one of those disclaimers that the film world puts on their DVDs. 'My views do not necessarily reflect policy decision enacted by Discovery Institute' or something. :P)

And there was this gem:

"The consensus of the scientific community is that Critical Analysis of Evolution is unsound teaching based on the Discovery Institute's flawed anti-evolution creationist premise, and scientists have overwhelmingly rejected the institute's proposals.[citation needed]"

One of the more silly qualifiers I've ever read. Well I thought it was all silly, but the rest of it can be legitimised as neutral reporting (assuming a citation is forthcoming). Wikipedia's job is not to validate or invalidate theories/opinions/convictions or determine 'good/flawed science'. If you stick in a qualifier like that, it needs to be part of an actual quote from an actual human being.

In fact, you can't even label it 'creationism' since it's legally distinct. So the same thing applies there.

And what's the purpose of this addition? -

"The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, comprising 262 affiliated societies and academies of science and some 10 million individuals, has consistently opposed the teaching of intelligent design, with or without language that calls into question the validity of evolution, saying in a policy statement that "the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."[33]"

This article is supposed to be discussing 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' not 'Intelligent Design'. Another 'guilt by association' doohickey? That's like taking an article on marijuana and critiquing hippies. (Who should all burn in a fiery chasm, obviously.) Pieces on opinion toward Intelligent Design belong in an article called intelligent design. It's not difficult just to hyperlink.

There's probably way more I could comment on, but you get the drift. Sheesh, come to think of it, there's personalisations flying all over the place. "Dembski's research assistant felt compelled...". That's sounds like it'd go nicely into a 'truth-scopey' biography, but hardly a fitting presumption here. He might have just been bored for all we know. Etc, etc. I don't mind the constant reiteration of 'science vs ID' (because science apparently only exists as a consensus), but at least an attempt of more than superficial neutrality would be greatly appreciated. I like to read matter-of-fact articles, not blogs. It's not like the public needs to be told what their opinion is.

I wouldn't know exactly how to edit it all myself, since I'd probably just reach for the delete key.

SuperMudz (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)