Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Critics say......
Since some here have decided BRD won't apply to this article and they want to debate via reverts and edit summaries. The original text says "Although the critics of intelligent design believe it to be a pseudoscientific religious idea, the film presents it as science-based, without giving a detailed definition of the concept or attempting to explain it on a scientific level." This is not incorrect, nor is it arguing about gravity or what other ridiculous example can be contrived. Read the entire sentence..... Critics DO call it psuedoscience (the proponents obviously do not) and that's where I think you are stopping. the rest says.... "the film presents it as science-based, without giving a detailed definition of the concept or attempting to explain it on a scientific level." The edit that is being forced in is redundant. It's saying "it's pseudoscience", then explains again that it's pseudoscience. the orignial wording say "critics say", then "the film tries to say..." then "but doesn't do these things". Not only are the edits not needed (because the original text is not incorrect), but it actually makes the line redundant and starts to venture away from being neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps reorder to "the film presents it as science-based, Although the critics of intelligent design believe it to be a pseudoscientific religious idea".Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is mistaken about what BRD says. The line has been the same for a while, at least a year, so the burden is on the person who wants to make a controversial change to start the discussion.
 * It is not merely "critics" who call it this, and it is not merely the personal opinion of a handful of critics. Intelligent design is pseudoscience and encyclopedias deal with facts, so it would be editorializing to imply that this is a subjective claim. Further, grouping together scientists as "critics" would be implying that there is some commonality or motive to this factual description, which is misleading. A factual description may or may not be a criticism, but this distinction isn't really the point here, so this smacks of WP:WEASEL. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't misrepresent BRD. It is critics. Do any proponents of ID call is pseudoscience? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two completely different items.
 * BRD is about the burden of discussion. You are the one who want to change something, so you are the one who needs to start using the Talk page when you are reverted the first time. Others can revert your edit without breaking the rule. That is what BRD says, and your calling out others for reverting and saying they violate BRD is just wrong. So, yes, you did misrepresent BRD.
 * "It is critics" - Exactly because calling ID pseudoscience makes somebody a critic, the word "critic" is not needed. It is unnecessary labeling. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, i didn't misrepresent it. And no, I'm not the one who wanted to change something. Another editor did. I reverted to their version. BTW, since it's not a policy, it really doesn't get violated. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing. You reverted a revert to the stable version, which is against BRD. And now you are just playing word games. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It also misrepresents the sequence of edits – The original text didn't say "Although the critics of intelligent design believe it ..... [etc.], that was this edit earlier today, which has rightly been reverted: it fails due weight. Grayfell is right, WP:PSCI applies. . dave souza, talk 20:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Enough with the misrepresentation claims. I represented what I have been involved in correctly. Whatever you or others were involved in with another editor isn't really my concern. I presented my interaction. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad I'm not the only one thinking "critics... believe" skates too close to weasel wording for comfort. In addition, "not incorrect" is a low bar to clear. Arguably, well-written encyclopedic text also needs clarity, focus, and coherent exposition of the subject, without inviting second guesses. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of you have made it clear that your POV fingerprints will remain. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is clear on WP:FRINGE beliefs like Intelligent Design that we situate them as the bunk they are. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 40% of Americans believe in creationism. Making it sound like Flat Earthers (2%) or Moon Landing hoaxers (5%) is a little unrealistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether something is fringe is not determined by the number of laymen who fall for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, US-Americans are a quite small part of humanity... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand our fringe polices it is based upon it being a fringe within the relevant accedemic community, not lay persons.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The intelligent design article has no problem calling it pseudoscientific right out of the gate. If the question of whether this article doing so is problematical, well, that's a much better place to take up the debate, not in this fringe space here. Given that it relies on some sort of supernatural intelligence, it seems to me the question only would be whether "pseudoscience" is the right word, or simply "nonscientific." I sort of doubt either will satisfy some. -R. fiend (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A point of contention
Reading this article in toto you will notice the phrase "theory of evolution" and "intelligent design" repeated throughout. This is an accurate statement made in multiple quotations in the article. However, in the opening paragraph, there is a deviation from this consistant practice creating ambiguity that promotes one theory over the other, by the addition of the words ("scientific" theory of evolution) and (Although intelligent design is a "pseudoscientific" religious idea). Neither of these statements is correct, nor are they in the public interest, and do not add value to this article. The only other mention of "pseudoscientific" is by Michael Shermer founder of The Skeptics Society, clearly highlighting the origin and partisan context of the words used.

Please feel free to read the definition of what a scientific theory is here: Scientific theory

According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

Note that evolution under one blanket does not qualify, more precisely macroevolution does not qualify, in the same way, creation does not qualify, in that it cannot: "be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Using the word pseudoscientific is then just as applicable to macroevolution as it is to intelligent design, and since this article and the movie it is talking about does not differentiate one from the other, but blankets all evolution as being one school of thought, it is highly irregular to make the opening paragraph containing blanket statements trying sway the reader in a direction of a specific belief structure, namely belief in one unprovable theory over another.

Please remove the inuendoes to allow readers to get information, and not opinion-based information, as this is a violation of the terms of use. When writing for an encyclopedia it is not appropriate to use deliberately intended inuendoes to promote or demote an idea based on opinion no matter how popular that opinion may be.

I am writing here in the talk section as every time I remove the two ambiguous words my edit is undone.

Best regards,

Johnbplett (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to argue that intelligent design isn't pseudoscience. Arguing this point based on your own understanding of the term is original research, which is not usable on Wikipedia. It also has little to do with improving this Wikipedia article about a movie that came out twelve years ago. Further, Wikipedia isn't a platform for debate, it is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia provides information based on reliable sources.
 * Your use of the term "macroevolution" suggests that you are not familiar with the modern understanding of evolution. If you are sincerely interested in understanding this topic, you may find Modern synthesis (20th century) helpful. Per many, many sources, intelligent design is pseudoscience, and to misrepresent this as having mainstream support would be at odds with the fundamental purpose of this project. If you would like to review those sources, there are over a hundred at intelligent design. I am merely mentioning this for your convenience, as again, this page is not the appropriate place to have a discussion on the larger topic of evolution. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Grayfell, The attack is not coming from me, nor did I ask for a debate. My request is also not "based on your own understanding of the term" but on direct quotations from credible sources. I stick with hard facts in my articles, and when editing. If there is a gray area that remains unproven, then I say this is a gray area that remains unproven regardless of my personal beliefs. I am merely mentioning this for your convenience, as this page is not the appropriate place to have a discussion on the larger topic of evolution. Scientific theory vs Belief vs Scientific_hypothesis Awake!


 * I do not control anything, nor do I want to. I am merely pointing out a minor problem with this article that could be fixed with the removal of two words, but I am met with stiff backlash and opposition that seem religiously fanatical in nature.


 * Johnbplett (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I said nothing about an attack nor about control. Using this as a backdoor attempt to convert me to the Jehovah's Witnesses is unexpected, and comically ineffective, but it's also spamming. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy.
 * Reliable sources consistently treat intelligent design as pseudoscience (or worse). We are not interested in your opinion that reliable sources are wrong. You imply that your understanding of scientific theory is better than the mainstream sources, but your opinion is totally irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell One of the things you are omitting is to assume good faith.

You state "Per many, many sources" and "reliable sources" but when making reference you send me to another Wikipedia page and a blog post?

":The Scientific theory article you point me to, states that evolution is a well established foundational scientific theory and "Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology" .Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)"

When I give you a link to a published article you do not assume good faith but accuse me of spamming?

All of this because I tried to remove 2 words form an article?

What valid objection it there to removing the word "pseudoscientific" and stating just the fact "religious idea" or to remove "scientific" form the correct statement "theory of evolution"?

It such a simple request an attack on someone?

It seems this movie hit the nail on the head, in one way, a narrative is being forced not just in the intellectual community but on Wikipedia...

Johnbplett (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The valid objection is, that on Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Johnbplett (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note, your reference "to an article in a published journal" links to Jehovah’s Witnesses.org and their Watchtower Awake magazine, which are undoubtedly strong on truthiness but don't meet Wikipedia's policies requiring reliable secondary sources on this topic. . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the format for you. Please do not insert new headers above other users' contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to the content.
 * Please read WP:LUNATIC. We repeat what reliable sources say. You have been misled by unreliable sources to think that ID is somehow not pseudoscience. That is your problem, not Wikipedia's.
 * The article Intelligent design contains reliable sources that explain why ID is pseudoscience, and we follow them. We do not follow your opinion instead.
 * What you are doing here happens every day in some article about a pseudoscience or about its proponents. Someone does not understand the facts, has an opinion, and demands that that opinion needs to be reflected in the article instead of the facts. That. Will. Not. Happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse others of attacking you when they haven't done so. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean we have to immediately agree with whatever you say, we can point out problems with your claims.  Awake! is pretty obviously only going to convince other JWs.  Convincing non-JWs with Awake! would require converting them.
 * If you want to argue that Wikipedia should not call Intelligent Design a pseudoscience, go to that article. If you want to argue that Wikipedia should not take the stance that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, go to our article on evolution.  This is not the article about those topics.  This is not a general discussion forum, it is specifically a talk page for improvements relating to this movie.
 * Wait, no, actually, don't bother going to those articles, I'll just cut to the chase and let you know what you're going to find out there: Intelligent Design pretends to be science but isn't -- that makes it pseudoscience.  Trying to argue that it's really a religious idea and therefore not pseudoscience means that it doesn't belong in science classes (and I'm saying that as a big fan of Natural theology).
 * The religious idea behind Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationism, an interpretation of the Bible that degrades Genesis into a scientific(ally wrong) claim by ignoring the various ways Yom is translated, 2 Peter 3:8, and the very concept of metaphysical poetry (much less the concept that such art is intended to point to a higher meaning than how long the universe has been rotting about). That's why the majority of Christians outside of America (and a significant portion in America) and the majority of Jews (period!) reject it in favor of Theistic evolution.  If it were in not scientifically false, then it wouldn't be only a fringe minority of American-style Fundamentalists and their political cronies using the most uneducated interpretation of an ancient text to defend it.  As I've said elsewhere regarding YEC:
 * The only individuals advocating YEC are followers of the very closely related Abrahamic religions (and the Jewish and Muslim membership would realistically be described as "token"). No atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, or anyone else supports YEC. If the world was observably only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old.  Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Theroadislong and @Ian.thomson
 * Thank you, this is exactly the point. Intelligent design is a religious belief, so it creates ambiguity when it is preceded by "pseudoscience".
 * Macroevolution is a mainstream conclusion drawn by many, from the evidence seen in microevolution, but not by all. It is definitely not the only mainstream thinking, and therefore, I am not creating ambiguity or misrepresentation to say the "theory of evolution".


 * However, in the opening paragraph, the use of the word "pseudoscience" and "scientific" does create an ambiguous notion.


 * The articles I have shared comply with Wikipedias requirements for being reliable sources, and show very clearly that there is definitely more than one mainstream view and therefore any article on the subject should comply by being neutral. Neutral point of view


 * Just to be clear, I referred to an article in a published journal that quoted from another published journal in the field of Science as the reason why I removed the word "Scientific" in front of the phrase theory of evolution. I also shared a link to the definition on Wikipedia of what a Scientific theory and Scientific_hypothesis is. Both links have similar criteria for a theory to be scientific. Again I am referring solely to macroevolution, as this article and many others do not distinguish a difference, just another ambiguity that causes confusion.


 * In order for this to be an Encyclopedia, there must be an impartial neutral tone to writing articles that very clearly have more than one "mainstream" thinking. Please do not blanket the religious belief of intelligent design with creationism, a very definite pseudoscience.


 * I am appealing to the editors, to please take a deep breath, and look at the facts. Currently, the amount of time and argument you have generated for the sake of defending 2 words that would not damage or in any way detract from this article makes it seem as though you are using this article to promote one idea above another.


 * For me personally, this movie just highlighted that there are people who believe in evolution and defend it as fanatically at creationists defend creationism. Then there are the rest of us who are open to all possibilities and do not like to be forced to believe something.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbplett (talk • contribs)


 * I politely suggest that this thread is closed now per WP:NOTFORUM. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design is a religious belief THAT IS PUSHED AS IF IT WERE SCIENCE. It's completely dishonest to pretend that that's not happening.
 * Macroevolution is proven by fossil records and is yet another reason why Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
 * the use of the word "pseudoscience" and "scientific" does create an ambiguous notion -- Ok, fine, we'll just label ID as "scientifically false" and evolution as "factually true." Is that less ambiguous?  No, seriously, removing those two words creates ambiguity, a lack of clarity between what is true and false.  Evolution is a scientific fact.  Intelligent Design is not merely the suggestion that God is the ultimate source of the universe (a belief also held by Theistic evolution) but a rejection of evolution and ultimately YEC pretending to be science.
 * look at the facts -- Get an Amazonian deforestation crew to do something about your eyes before you go pointing out the motes in the eyes of others'.
 * Again, this is not the Evolution article. This is not the Intelligent Design article.  Trying to change those articles through this page is nothing but disruptive.  Stop trying to use this article as a WP:POVFORK to civilly POV-push for creationism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an attempt by creationists to invent a "creation science". So yes it is pseudoscience, as plenty of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally biased article!!!
This article is completely biased, and it is in itself a proof that the documentary has a point in arguing that darwininists do not accept any discussion. The article should not declare one side of the discussion as the "truth" and disqualify the other side from the beginning as "unscientific". This is ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:AC0:9E0:318A:564C:5F44:DBD7 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Biased? Ooh, that's a new one! You know what, nobody noticed that before. Congratulations for paying attention!
 * No, actually. The discussion has happened, in the 19th century. Creationists still use the reasoning refuted back then, and when scientists refute it again, they just do not listen. Go to talk.origins to spout that same old tired old bullshit. This is Wikipedia, which is about the knowledge of humanity and not about its ignorance.
 * You should really read WP:GOODBIAS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was constructive.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob pointing out that OP's objections were considered and rejected over a hundred years ago, and then presenting an essay that helps explain why WP writes the way it does? Yes, that is a very constructive response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you have anything constructive to add? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've decided not to engage with the tag team again. For the record, I don't think the OP approached this correctly either. Good day. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So you decided to just come here and give Hob some well-deserved praise? I'm sure Hob appreciates that, but it really isn't constructive, so in the future, you should probably congratulate editors in this way at their talk pages. You may also want to check your indent- ahh, nevermind, I'll fix it for you, per WP:INDENT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you saw praise in that response, then I will compliment you on your vivid imagination. Well done sir. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I saw childish petulance and sarcasm, but I decided to respond with equal sarcasm. I left out the childish petulance because that's not my gig. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You left it out? Don't sell yourself short. You successfully multi-tasked. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about and —they were added by me, not MjolnirPants. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not. I can see in the edit history who did it. Thanks for offering to clear it up though. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this response does not sound tendentious at all. Scientific discoveries increasingly point towards a God-Creator, not against one. The odds against life, let alone intellectual life, are so staggering that atheist scientists are now positing the nonsensical, let alone non-provable, ideas (e.g., a multiverse, etc.). However, the original comment did not argue this. All it said was that one side does not accept any discussion, which the response proves is the truth. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by what wp:rs says, not wp:fringe sources. When god is shown to exist in a paper published by as reputable peer-reviewed journal we can accept the idea as valid, until then we follow what actual scientists say, not your OR. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The odds against life, let alone intellectual life, are so staggering This is exactly the same old tired old bullshit I was talking about. See for a refutation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hob, creationists do not perform research and have nothing new to offer. Repeating "tired old bullshit" is the full extent of their intellectual capacity. I would not expect a dog to provide a lecture, and I would not expect a creationist to have an innovative thought. Dimadick (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any concrete objections/sugestions we can discuss?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You're correct, this article is biased. But that's only because evolution is essentially proven, whilst creationism is largely discredited. This makes any accusations of bias pointless. 71.221.194.121 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda Film?
Look, if Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 and others like it are not listed as "propaganda" by Wikipedia, then I am unsure why Expelled should be. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You would need to ask on their pages, RS call this propaganda, so we do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is RS? If you mean "real scientists" (why can't you just type it?), then I suggest your sampling is quite narrow or consists of people who have formed an opinion without seeing the movie...or both. 2600:1700:7F08:4200:507F:97FE:4E3:7881 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources we use for the claim. Again if you want changes made to those articles, make the case there, and what is done there has no relevance to what is done here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When people use an abbreviation on Wikipedia, try putting "WP:" in front of it. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone thinks this article is supposed to be NPOV. That's cute. -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It cute that someone thinks we do not accurately reflect what RS say about this film. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a couple critics say it's propaganda (or like propaganda, which is actually saying it isn't propaganda, but let's not let that bother anyone) and Wikipedia decides to take it as gospel, despite the fact that the vast majority of sources do not make this claim. What's especially funny is that one thing just about every reliable source does say about it is that it's a documentary (not a good one, but a documentary nonetheless), but this article can't even bring itself to say that much, and has labelled it "documentary-style" or whatever they've decided to call it. Just admit that a handful of editors have staked their claim on this article to reflect their POV. Pretending otherwise is unbecoming. -R. fiend (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So find a source that says its not propaganda, as that is how we determined if something is disputed. But I agree it is a documentary. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it a documentary? It doesn't provide facts or information about a subject, it provides the opposite in the style of a documentary, and is described by reliable sources as propaganda. Propaganda in the style of a documentary, As opposed to a dramatic propaganda film or comedic propaganda film, summarized in the lede as "documentary-style propaganda film." It's quite possible that more films would accurately be similarly described, but that's a failing in the reliable sources that apply to them. -tronvillain (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire article comes across as very biased. Could have a rewrite in at least a more neutral tone. Not sure that the adjective "propaganda" is necessary. Even Birth of a Nation isn't listed as a propaganda film in the first sentence. 2001:F40:943:874:5891:AE84:D812:C027 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)