Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/Archive 4

Played baseball?
Why does it say that "Wells hit a home run at Harvard" (against Stephen Palumbi)? Did they play baseball, with Palumbi pitching? No, they were on a panel, debating each other, and Intelligent Design advocate Philip Johnson characterized the result as Wells hitting a home run (follow the links on references for the "home run" statement to see this). NPOV? No way. Felsenst (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was reading through the article and this very part really stumped me. It's misleading and simply uninformative. I had to read the sources over and over to confirm that no baseball actually happened. Anyone care to rewrite it to factually represent the information in those cited articles? As a side note I was really looking forward to this uneventful home run because I just can't see a home run being uneventful. 50.72.2.178 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"pseudoscientific" in the lede


There are a lot of things we can say about Jonathan Wells which are "relevant" to him, but would be inappropriate in the lede, for example one can say he is of the species homo sapiens which is the dominant species on planet Earth which is the third planet in the Solar System which is about 8.5 kpc away from the center of the galaxy known as the Milky Way. These things are all true but they are not appropriate in the lede. I am going to remove this again per WP:COATRACK. To reiterate, this is not claiming that ID is not pseudoscientific, but rather that the claim that ID is pseudoscientific does not belong in this article (it would belong in Intelligent Design, but not here). Banedon (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It does belong in the article because Mr. Wells is a molecular biologist, i.e. scientist, and is a leading proponent of the pseudoscientific theory of intelligent design. It can't be WP:COATRACK because it is actually the only thing he is notable for, i.e. being a scientist AND a proponent of Intelligent Design, which by even your own account is pseudoscience.  It is nothing like calling him a human being, which is actually WP:SKYISBLUE.  I am not sure how anyone would have a leg to stand on in regards to this edit.  It is all fact based, no WP:SYNTH at all.  Lipsquid (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So he's notable for being a proponent of ID, but that still does not mean that a discussion of whether ID is scientific or not should be in this article. It should be in the ID article (to which I note it is already there), but not this one. What you wrote is great justification for mentioning ID in the lede, to which I agree should be there. But the edit in question is not about merely mentioning ID. I still see COATRACK. Note SYNTH is not involved here at all, or what I wrote about the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way etc are all fact-based and no synthesis involved. Banedon (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not notable for being a proponent of ID. Millions of people are proponents of ID and that makes none of them notable or useful to he movement. He is notable for being a scientist who supports a pseudoscience, nothing else.  The same would be true of a no name Astronomer who supports the Flat Earth theory.  He would be a scientist who supports a pseudoscience and that would make him notable.  Wikipedia has a strong history of being very specific when people advocate psuedoscience and that is their only notability, as is the case here.  Pseudoscientific is merely an adjective for Intelligent Design in my edit, it is unbelievably well cited as pseudoscience.  It is not coatrack since that is his only notability and unless you have some other notability for him, I am going to put it back.  To let you know that I understand your argument, look at this article B.o.B  He is an incredibly well know musician and still in his lede, he was called out for supporting pseudoscience.  Compared to that edit, which is also certainly notable, my edit was rather neutral.  If you prefer I can change it to something like the B.o.B article and say "Johnathan Wells is widely ridiculed for being a scientist and a proponent of Intelligent Design."  I think my original edit is fairly neutral, less harsh and more encyclopedic, but the ridiculed text would work for me and I could get reliable sources for it.  I am open to compromise, but a scientist supporting intelligent design should say something about it being pseudoscience or ridicule worthy because it is. Best!  Lipsquid (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the lede should say he is notable for being a scientist that is a proponent of ID (which the current lede already says too, by the way). The lede should not say he notable for being a scientist that is a proponent of the pseudoscientific ID. Note that even the article you linked says "In January 2016, B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat." It doesn't say B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat, which is a pseudoscientific theory debunked long ago by XYZ. Citing this example illustrates that you do not understand my argument. Banedon (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not finished yet, why the revert? Banedon (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is only notable as a scientist who supports pseudoscience. If he didn't support pseudoscience, we would not have a Wikipedia page for him.  It is noteworthy and well-sourced.  It is the same as if we had an article on an Astronomer who believed in the pseudoscientific belief of a flat earth.  Him believing the Earth is flat and that belief being pseudoscientific, is certainly noteworthy about HIM.  Lipsquid (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which still does not mean we declare that flat Earth is pseudoscientific in the lede of an article on him. I quote from above, "Note that even the article you linked says "In January 2016, B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat." It doesn't say B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat, which is a pseudoscientific theory debunked long ago by XYZ." You also don't have to keep repeating that "it is noteworthy and well-sourced". I repeat, this is a COATRACK objection to including the claim that ID is pseudoscientific, not a factual one. Banedon (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two words in an article is not coatrack especially when he even admits his purpose for publishing is "destroying Darwinism" which is the scientific consensus. He focuses himself on intelligent design and intelligent design is pseudoscience.  The WP:COATRACK argument is nonsense.  if anything it is a question of due weight and I doubt many editors, considering this individual's positions, would believe calling ID pseudoscience WP:UNDUE.  Feel free to take it to the fringe board or make an RfC. I will abide by either.   Lipsquid (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one changing the article, so you should be the one to do it ... but I've done it anyway. Feel free to edit the RfC question if you perceive it as non-neutral. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should ID's status as a pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede?
Currently the first sentence of this article says "John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design." Does the inclusion of the words "pseudoscientific principle" violate WP:COATTRACK? Banedon (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification The main question is should 'pseudoscientific' be in the lead sentence, as above, this clarification was added after initial comments below. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - this is an article on the person, not on ID. An article on ID should mention that it's pseudoscientific in the lede, but not here. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No- The person is only notable for their advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design and their self-stated goal is in "destroying Darwinism" which is scientific consensus. It can't be WP:COATRACK as they have no other notability.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include these words; they are appropriate to include per WP:FRINGE/PS: "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." There is a BLP-related concern here, but it is a different one, WP:FRINGEBLP: are the subject's fringe views central enough to the subject's notability to be mentioned in the lead? But if they are mentioned they should be clearly identified. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include these words as per Lipsquid and David Eppstein, only notable for his pseudoscientific advocacies. Davidbuddy9 Talk 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include the words. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise". In this case the article subject is solely notable for his fringe views, advocacy of pseudoscience, and antiscience stance. He is not an expert on anything. Dimadick (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed the wording for the time being, as a recent addition that has been challenged, as well as a BLP. It looks like this RfC is heading towards a consensus to include, but the word should only be added back in when the RfC is closed. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include the words. The goal of ID, as of any pseudoscience, is to mimic science and confuse the issue. One part of this strategy is to remove the word "pseudoscientific" from ID articles in Wikipedia. This is happening at several fronts at the moment. See Specified complexity‎ and Discovery Institute. As soon as there is no mention of the word in any ID articles, Wikipedia as a whole will present a picture of ID as if it were just another scientific theory. Which it is not, of course. Dropping the word means concealing the low status this idea has in the scientific world. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You come very close to offending by indirectly calling me a proponent of ID, or any pseudoscience, with a nefarious agenda. Just saying. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was not directed against you. I have a lot of articles on my watchlist, and some ID articles are subject to such discussions at the moment. Also just saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude for the moment . As yet, no-one has suggested a reliable source for the designation, so it's a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) Struck the words "for the moment" in light of the other "exclude" !votes below. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't understand: that Jonathan Wells is notable as an ID advocate is not in dispute. Neither is ID being pseudoscientific. What do you mean by "reliable source for the designation"? Banedon (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not in dispute" doesn't mean it doesn't have to be cited; see Verifiability, not truth. All controversial BLP statements need a citation from a reliable source. That's at the heart of our BLP policy, and is non-negotiable. Actually, what we really should have is a specific reference that Wells himself is an advocate of pseudoscience, rather than an original synthesis-style amalgamation of Wells is an ID advocate/ID is pseudoscience. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Grossinger, Embryos, Galaxies, and Sentient Beings: How the Universe Makes Life, p. 57 is the sort of thing I mean, but we probably need a better source for a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not in dispute" does mean "not controversial", Wikipedia does not require a source that specifically says Mr. Wells belief in ID is also a belief in pseudoscience. We only need sources that say Wells believes in ID and other sources that say ID is pseudoscience.  WP:FRINGE/PS "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification"..." Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."  Lipsquid (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No - you are wrong. "Not in dispute" does not mean "not controversial", though the word used in the BLP policy is "contentious". It doesn't matter if we all agree that ID is pseudoscience (and I suspect we do) - it is still a controversial designation, and cannot be added to a BLP without reliable sourcing. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One cannot have a "controversy" without a "dispute" over some part of material and you are just making up thing as you go. WP:FRINGE/PS is clear how to treat this and he has no other notability.  Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, we need to distinguish between what we agree about (and we are not disputing that ID is pseudoscience) with what the general public/readership thinks (and many readers would find the pseudoscience label controversial). StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude. This is an article about a person, not a belief. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place to pass judgements on unpopular viewpoints. See this link, where Wikipedia bias against ID is specifically mentioned. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also "biased against" young earth creationism, flat earth, moon landing conspiracy theories, homeopathy, climate change denial, chemtrails, Holocaust denial, the yeti, ear candles and a whole lot of other nonsense. And the people who believe in those things don't like that "bias". So what? We repeat what the reliable sources say. Those people have a conflict not with Wikipedia, but with reality, and in that conflict we should stay on the side of reality instead of being silent to prevent offending anyone. See WP:Lunatic charlatans.
 * "Intelligent design" is a phrase that does a good job of hiding its character. Nothing wrong with correcting that by adding an adjective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The zeal that some editors have for their secular and liberal views, like you just showed above, is quite amazing. No use in responding further to your rant other than to note that, as an editor above noted, we don't have any reliable sources that state that Wells advocates pseudoscience, and for such a controversial topic (and yes, ID and some of the other topics you listed are very controversial and thus should at least be taken more seriously) we should not include the words in question. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Soapboxy about secular liberals and their pesky science. Scientifically it is not a controversial topic.  Lipsquid (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Scientifically, none of the subjects I mentioned is a controversial topic. I am just pro-science and anti-crackpottery, like Wikipedia. If that is "liberal" for you, 90s guy, that's not my problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A look at the talk pages of any article related to ID or creationism shows that this subject is much more controversial (and mainstream, I will add) than many editors here are willing to admit. This subject should be taken more seriously and carefully because of that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk pages of any of the articles I linked above look exactly the same as the creationism ones: Ignorant anti-science editors complain that the article is biased, and the people who actually know things try to explain why the article is neutral and in accordance with the rules. And the first group does not get it.
 * So, by your reasoning, Holocaust denial is "mainstream".
 * I said "scientifically". That means, "among scientists", "within peer-reviewed publications", "at real universities". Not "among laymen", "among yokels and hillbillies", "among religious fundamentalists", "among Americans", or "among anti-science Wikipedia editors". Wikipedia is supposed to spread knowledge, not lack thereof. That's why we give credence to the knowledgeable sources and no credence to the others.
 * All this has been discussed before. Your reasoning is worthless argumentum ad populum. Please try to understand Wikipedia's rules and abandon this fruitless campaign against quality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be better to just ignore your rant with its insults rather than actually pay attention to them (but seriously, we're talking about ID here, not the holocaust. And what do you even mean by "real universities"? As opposed to Trump University? :) ). But regardless of the intentions of the people and editors who complain on the talk pages, the arrogant, insulting, and rude attitiudes of many of the "science defenders" who respond to them isn't helping either. Just saying. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, if you react this passionately to anything which sounds like a scientific challenge (in spite of many different people having emphasized that this is not a scientific challenge to the two words), you might want to evaluate whether you are able to write a neutral article on pseudoscience topics. After all, WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Banedon (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * These are just red herrings. Calling my reasoning "rant" or "passionate" is just an invalid excuse for ignoring it. My reasoning stands: what you see as justification for taking ID seriously would, by the same reasoning, also be justification for taking every other pseudoscience in the world seriously. Thus, your justification is invalid.
 * I have read scientific literature, and I have read ID literature, and the difference is clear. It is also clear to every pseudoscience expert I have ever read. ID is a classical example of pseudoscience, as you would know if you were familiar with the relevant sources quoted in the ID article.
 * Banedon, you too should read what NPOV really means. I do, and I adhere to it. ID is called pseudoscience in reliable sources, and it does not matter if a few editors think that they know better than the reliable sources.
 * "As opposed to Trump University?" As opposed to creationist letterboxes calling themselves "Institute" and giving out diplomas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you cannot even admit that Christian universities (accredeted universities, in fact) that teach YEC and/or ID are real universities, we might have reason to doubt your adherence to NPOV. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Get a grip. If it teaches ID or YEC, it is obviously not doing science. Read the literature. No real university would hire any biologist with a "diploma" from there. That is not my opinion, it's reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that they are real universities, You cannot admit that they are not real univerisites and use scare-quotes for "diploma", even though many of them, such as Liberty University (as an example) are fully accredited, and are actually relatively prestigious. The fact that some "real" (aka secular) universities will not hire those with real diplomas from fully accredited Christian universities is not the problem of the Christian univeristies. It's the problem of the secular universities. It is quite clear that you cannot be trusted to edit (at least) the articles of any Christian university. So, before you accuse me of pov-pushing here, I recommend that you examine yourself and your adherence of NPOV on that topic. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is the problem of the Christian universities. If they were, for example, teaching the evolution/creationism controversy as part of their course, then that's a perfectly valid academic subject.  But when they're teaching students courses that state as fact that the earth is 3,000 years old and evolution is a myth, then their diplomas aren't worth the paper they're written on and it's unsurprising that universities that do teach fact-based courses won't accept them. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be otherwise for a fully accredited Christian university (and BTW, how did you ever come up with 3,000. YECs believe the Earth is 6,000 years old). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new here. You are just reasserting your misguided beliefs that ID and YEC are not pseudoscientific and that an institution can teach those subjects and still be a university, and your dogmatic idea that I should not be trusted to edit because I disagree with you. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't even argued for taking ID seriously. Like I said, this is clearly a topic you feel passionately about, to the point where you perceive anything that sounds remotely like being in favour of ID as something that is "taking ID seriously" (in spite of numerous edits emphasizing that this is not a scientific challenge), to the point where you have to emphasize and re-emphasize that ID is pseudoscience even though nobody is disputing that statement. I do not think you are capable of editing articles on pseudoscience neutrally. Further, that reliable sources call ID pseudoscientific is not really relevant to NPOV: that falls under WP:RS and WP:V. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am discussing with two very different people here. Most of what I say is obviously directed at 90s guy, who is the real POV warrior here - though you partly do use the same spurious reasoning. (By the way: why don't you take him to task for his POV? Because he's on your side in this issue? What does that say about your own NPOV?) I am just defending Wikipedia's stance that we have to clearly separate science from non-science.
 * Using the word once in an article does not constitute "emphasize and re-emphasize". And "nobody is disputing that statement" must be a joke. 90s guy is disputing it all the time.
 * "I do not think you are capable of editing articles on pseudoscience neutrally." I do not think you would recognize neutrality if if bit you in the leg. And I am starting to doubt you can be taken seriously at all. You, like 90s guy, are trying to define who can edit and who can't based on your own warped understanding of what NPOV means. Discussions should use reasoning related to the issue at hand, not ad hominem reasoning of the type "I don't like your opinion, so you are not allowed to edit here". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude as written presently, not sure if it is coatrack, but as written it is inapt. Wells is an 'intelligent designer', ID=pseudoscience, therefore Wells is or advocates pseudoscience is not good enough. Reading the whole article, and the final sentence of lead, makes it clear that conventional science rejects his views utterly (as do I), but effectively saying the man is a fraud in sentence one, is not neutral, nor IMO the apt approach. Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC) … … in case it is not clear, my objection is to proposed wording only, I have no objection to properly sourced criticism of his work, whether that be pseudo-science/ worthless/ whatever being in the lead though this does not ordinarily belong in the first sentence. Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WP:BLP and per WP:NPOV, the wording should be - intelligent design advocate. The term Intelligent design is wikilinked for further reading and that is sufficient. The second para in the lead makes it abundantly clear that "Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community".-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Include - When we describe a subject, sometimes it makes sense to briefly give context to parts of that description. Might be some jargon that needs definition, less than obvious historical context, or just good writing. Saying anything at all about a term we use does not a coatrack make. "Pseudoscience" here is a description of "intelligent design" like we might give a brief description to contextualize eg. "Smith was born in Springfield, a small mining town east of Metropolis". We don't need a source saying "Smith is a person from a small mining town" to describe Springfield as such. And that doesn't even factor in the particular rules we have for dealing with fringe theories on Wikipedia. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in the first sentence where it's sorta like beating the reader over the head. Instead change the last sentence of the lead to something like "The scientific community regards intelligent design as a pseudoscience and has rejected Wells's views on evolution." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include; if we call him an advocate of ID (and if we don't, he isn't notable" we should explain what ID is, per WP:FRINGE/PS. Boris makes a good point though, but that's secondary - it still belongs in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand - RfC is about whether the words should be in the lede sentence. The current second paragraph in the lede already makes it clear that ID is fringe. Banedon (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But the heading says "mentioned in the lede". Perhaps that should be "mentioned in the lede sentence". StAnselm (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, amended that for clarity. Banedon (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - You can't just edit the topic after so many people have weighed in. It's misleading for anyone trying to resolve the RFC. Please change it back, but feel free to add a clarifying note - with a time stamp. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note a clarifier was added at this point in discussion Pincrete (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am happy with Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's suggestion of "The scientific community regards intelligent design as a pseudoscience and has rejected Wells's views on evolution" in the lead, but not the lead sentence - as long as it's reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in the first sentence -- this is what the subject is notable for. As stated above, "if we call him an advocate of ID (and if we don't, he isn't notable") we should explain what ID is, per WP:FRINGE/PS". Not all readers may be familiar with the concept of ID or willing to click on the link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include in lede paragraph, in the 1st or 2nd sentence. First on the issue of the placement, we have the statement at the end of the 2nd paragraph "Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community." By omitting the 'p' word, this fails to establish how truly fringe he is. On the COATRACK issue, it seems like it might be a bigger violation to omit the phrase from the lede than to have it in there. I'm guessing the original concern was whether this is a case of But it's true!. I understand the concern, but with this article I don't think those concerns hold up. As far as the question of whether we should "soften the blow" by moving it (arguably, burying it), there might be a better grounds for doing so than COATRACK. For example, I go through the List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience and go to prominent figures like Erich von Däniken, Zecharia Sitchin, and on and on - and none of those articles I've read mentions pseudoscience in the lede sentence, but usually in the second sentence (and almost always in the lede paragraph). It really seems to ease the flow of writing so we aren't getting bludgeoned with it, without burying it. So perhaps the discussion could be oriented towards framing it more akin to those articles. But as the RfC stands I'm in inclined to include it as stated, rather than risk burying or omitting it. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. He's notable for being a pseudoscientist, so it should be mentioned.50.134.25.41 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. per all of the above, his notability as ID proponent would not be notable if ID weren't pseudoscientific. Willondon (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak exclude. The first sentence mentions intelligent design, as a wikilink for readers who don't already know what it means. Isn't that enough? Maproom (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. It is not contentious that ID is pseudoscience, so BLP does not apply. Given the lede introduces him as a scientist, it seems important to state that he is notable not for his scientific advocacy, but for his pseudoscience advocacy.  A casual reader might take the identification of him as a molecular biologist as a scientific endorsement of his beliefs.  He doesn't seem to have published any papers as a biologist since publishing the results of his graduate research.  Also, there is no indication that he had a position at a University or Research lab after receiving his PhD.  Is it accurate to describe him as a biologist?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaun (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Include somewhere in the lead or else we run the risk of portraying him as an actual scientist as opposed to a delusional religious nut. Wikipedia needs to be fact-based. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)