Talk:Michael Egnor

Out of date ref
reference 2 is clearly years out of date and the figure needs updating. -- user:Steinsky (too lazy to look up my password), 193.201.197.88 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS for the updated number? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
Of the 11 references in this article: That makes over half the sources "sources affiliated with the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 are to Egnor's emplyer's website
 * 2 are to articles written by Egnor
 * 2 are to the DI's Evolutionnews.org blog

Merger proposal
Due to the lack of significant third-party sourcing, I'm proposing that this article (in a slimmed-down form) be merged into List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

POV
There are HUGE POV issues in this article. For example: "Egnor responded by posting an essay on the Discovery Institute's intelligent design blog falsely claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine" - Who says so? Did this person actually read the article that is cited at the end? I'm almost certain Egnor would say that "micro-evolution" is relevant to medicine while "macro-evolution" is not, which someone would know if they actually followed these types of arguments. See what disturbs me is that people are willing to claim someone is lying by distorting their position to an extreme or making up outright falsehoods about them. Even YECs believe in "micro-evolution" and it would be false to claim that even they don't believe it's important to medicine (it's hard to develop drugs without understanding well known processes about viruses mutate). 72.92.4.55 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

another disgusting WP hit piece
Why is Jerry Coyne's unsubstantiated slander allowed on a biography of a living person's article?

"Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century."

And it's the first thing mentioned in the article's body no less. The editors here really need to grow up. This article is a joke. 70.20.37.114 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Egnor. 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/20150310160713/http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/egnor to http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth/egnor

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) 17:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued criticism of Coyne
Michael Egnor has published a new article arguing for the existence of god and attacking Jerry Coyne - see here.

Coyne's response is here. JezGrove (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)