Talk:Phillip E. Johnson

Mainstream positions on fringe theories must be addressed directly
From our guidelines on fringe topics: "For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed."

Following the deletion and revision of appropriate material by Freakshownerd (followed by six reverts in 24 hours), this article no longer correctly presents creationism and AIDS denialism in a WP:FRINGE-compatible context. Instead, Johnson's creationism is presented as a scientific theory vaguely at odds with the position of "some" in the scientific community, and his AIDS denialist writings are merely a call for more research.

If Freakshownerd disagrees with WP:FRINGE, it may be better to change that guideline directly than simply to ignore its dictates here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says he has been associated with AIDS denialism, includes sourced statements about his past views on that subject (what his opinions are on AIDS epidemiology now, I have no idea because I can't find anything about them and they don't seem to be a major thrust of his speeches or writings), and notes that the scientific community dismisses Johnson's arguments as pseudoscience. As far as your dishonest accusations and bogus descriptions of the editing history, I can only request that you cease lying and engaging in grotesque distortions of reality. If you want to apologize I am certainly willing to listen. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting; we used to have this thing called civility around here, but perhaps the wedge strategy leaves no room for that? ;) Unless there is evidence that Johnson's positions on AIDS or creationism or evangelism have evolved, if you will, there's no reason to present them as relics of the distant past. I appreciate that the edit warring against the mention of pseudoscience has ceased, but I'm still concerned that the specific mentions of Johnson's positions may be somewhat "whitewashed", as an editor at the Fringe noticeboard stated.


 * I also object to the use of the term "Darwinism", which, as Johnson and his peers use it, is pejorative. The sentence should read, "...what he refers to as Darwinism". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the suggested change on Darwinism and added yet another source for AIDS denialism. The RA group is small and not particularly notable, but it is probably the most notable of the AIDS denialist groups. If a founding member of the group, a signatory to its Science letter, someone who has written (according to denialists) at least five articles on the subject, and who has taken this position in interviews, is/was not an AIDS denialist, then no one is. To whitewash this as merely asking for more research is inconsistent with all of the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed your changes and I don't see anything in what you cited to support the statements that Johnson is "A member of a prominent AIDS denialist group,[2] Johnson has written that HIV does not cause AIDS,[3][4][5]" or that he said "HIV tests do not detect HIV". I have raised my concerns about your misrepresentations and distortions on the BLP noticeboard. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the letter to the journal Science that formed the basis for the "Society for the Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" (or whatever it is they call or called themselves), Johnson was one of the twelve signatories. Usually abbreviated as "RA", this is the most prominent and influential AID denialist group, with funding from a US west coast investor. The letter stated that the signatories considered the association of HIV and AIDS to be a correlation, and a tautological correlation at that. The letter also stated that HIV tests do not accurately detect HIV, or may detect something other than HIV. Elsewhere, as cited in the article, Johnson has stated that AIDS statistics are exaggerated. Thus, three primary sources and three secondary sources already in the article support the assertion that Johnson is an AIDS denier. Perhaps these sources are inaccurate. If so, as Wikipedia editors we can do nothing until similarly verifiable sources dispute the assertion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnson was a rather prominent in the world of AIDS denialism in the 1990s. See, for instance, this 1994 article which he coauthored in Reason. It outlines the basic AIDS-denialist manifesto: researchers don't know how HIV kills T cells, not all people with "AIDS" are HIV-positive, and heterosexual transmission is virtually non-existent, there is no AIDS epidemic in Africa, etc. There's also some coverage of Johnson's role in Impure Science, by Steven Epstein (which I highly recommend to anyone with a real interest in the politics of the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic). It's clear that Johnson did espouse these ideas in the 1990s, although he no longer appears to do so publicly. If the concern is that he may have changed his mind, then the logical conclusion is simply to inform readers that he expressed these views in the 1990s, but has not published much/anything on the subject since. Right? MastCell Talk 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and would also support the addition of these sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The terms "Darwinism" and "scientific materialism" are used by Johnson as pejoratives and this unusual usage is easily indicated by quote marks. Linking our articles on the actual concepts of Darwinism and scientific materialism is thus inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As Darwinism indicates, the term has always had multiple meanings, and post the start of creationism in the 1920s, and particularly its 1960s expansion, the pejorative usage has become predominant in most contexts, at least areas in contact with the U.S.. The scientific materialism link redirects to Naturalism (philosophy) which isn't terribly good, and has lost its mention of ID claims. Johnson misuses the term to refer to Metaphysical naturalism, which isn't very helpful as an article either. Both are rather infested with Plantinga. So, the Darwinism link might be useful, but the scientific materialism term really has to be explained in context. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I undid the edit by dave souza in reference to the "majority" of the scientific community agreeing that Johnson's views are pseudoscience because (1) clearly there is no way to discover a universal consensus on such a viewpoint; (2) there are some reputable scientist who accept ID as a valid scientific approach; and (3) this is further underscored by the quote provided by David Mu on in this same sentence which clearly states: " '...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.'" In an effort to avoid appearing unjustifiably bias on the article the word "majority" should remain. Cbx318, talk Cbx318 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the only source cited, and it's an overwhelming majority: this has been repeatedly resolved elsewhere, and WP:MNA applies. The wording with just "majority" gives undue weight to a tiny fringe, to move this forward I've changed it to "clear consensus" which doesn't imply absolute, but that too may be understating the due weight. Your assertion that "there are some reputable scientist who accept ID as a valid scientific approach" is not supported by facts. . dave souza, talk 08:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Clear consensus" is acceptable and does not imply universal exhaustive agreement. However your assertion that there are no reputable scientist who accept ID as fact is obviously disputable and can be researched by anyone with a computer and the internet. I'll leave the matter here for now but I'm sure as time progresses there will be further discussions/changes on this particular issue. Cbx318, talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis
This sentence: "During the 1990s, Johnson was involved with AIDS denialism, which challenges the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[45][46][47][48]" carries a POV and would be better if an autorative figure was attributed in the text. Along the lines of "[insert the best known named source] and others have stated that during the 199..."

But that is only a side issue to what I want to raise. In my opinion having "The scientific community consider the AIDS denialist arguments to rely on cherry-picking of scientific data[49] as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS ..."

directly after "He was also one of the twelve founding members of the "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" and signatory to the group's letter to the editor of Science, asserting that HIV is only tautologically associated with AIDS and that HIV tests are inaccurate.[2]"

is a breach of WP:SYN, because it implies that Johnson " cherry-picking of scientific data" etc, which AFAICT is something that the sources do not directly support. -- PBS (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Epstein would be one good authoritative source to attribute. As for implications, WP:FRINGE asserts that we must place fringe theories such as AIDS denialism in proper perspective, e.g. the scientific community considers AIDS denialism to be pseudoscience, to rest on cherry-picking, etc. The exact language used is not particularly important as long as that verifiable fact is included. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact language is important, because this is a biography of a living person and what is written should be accurate. Also "denialism" has overtones of "Holocaust denialism" using the word "denies" rather than "denialism" is less judgements, and given the POV overtones of denialism presents a less of a specific POV. So another way to present the same information is:

"::In the 1990 Johnson challenged the general scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[2 citations one for his paper and for the general consensus] His [arguments/hypothesis or what ever] were rejected by [authoratative figure] and others,[citations] because [reasons] ...."


 * If the consensus here on the talk page is that we should mention denial then how about something like:

"::In the 1990s Johnson denied that there HIV is the cause of AIDS. His challenges to the established scientific consensus were dismissed by [authoritative figure] 2quote".[3 citations supporting his challenge, the established scientific consensus and the quote]"
 * -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The accepted term for these views is AIDS denialism. As such, Wikipedia uses the term. If you feel the overtones or implications of the term are unacceptable, you are more than welcome to challenge its use in journalism or in the scientific community. However, Wikipedia is not the place to make these challenges. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aids denilism seems well sources, but the issue of cherry picking is differnt. I lask for the quote for that sources that states that he cherry picked sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not state that Johnson cherry-picked sources; rather, it follows WP:FRINGE and characterise AIDS denialism in context, including the statement that AIDS denialists are criticised for cherry-picking sources. I would not object to removing the cherry-pick language, though, as long as we retain the statement that AIDS denialism is considered pseudoscience. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAICT WP:FRINGE is not directly relevant to this paragraph. The current wording implies through juxtaposition that these are things Johnson has done and as such without a source to confirm it, it falls under WP:SYN. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon you worte "AIDS denialism is considered pseudoscience." To deny a scientific theory one does not have to use scientific methods. So who considers it to be a AIDS Denialism to be a pseudoscience as opposed to "an idealogical position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth"? -- PBS (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the previous section above, Keepcalmandcarryon provided a highly relevant example - Johnson was a signatory of a pseudoscientific AIDS denialist piece in the journal Science - "pseudoscientific" in that the authors posed arguments meant to appear scientific, without fully adhering to scientific methods or recognizing evidence considered conclusive by the scientific community. -- Scray (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scray that Johnson is a pseudoscience is not what Keepcalmandcarryon wishes to emphasise, (s)he said "as long as we retain the statement that AIDS denialism is considered pseudoscience", I am asking who considers AIDS denialism to be a pseudoscience rather than for example "an idealogical position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth"? -- PBS (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AIDS denialism is a recognized term (we have an article on it). It is a form of pseudoscience, meaning we need to place it in context (i.e. a discredited idea).  The wording is accurate and does not imply Johnson cherry-picked data, only that those who deny AIDS selectively ignore research that disconfirms their hypothesis.  I don't see a reason to change the text.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The synthesis under discussion in this section was removed this edit -- PBS (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

denialism carries POV connotations
I think that using the term denialism carries POV connotation, much like the word terrorist or heretic does, as such articles are better if such views are not attributed via the passive narrative voice of the article. But that is not what we are debating we are debating whether the juxtaposition of the statement that "Johnson was involved with AIDS denialism .." with "The scientific community consider the AIDS denialist arguments to rely on cherry-picking of scientific data as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS." I think that the two together strongly imply that "Johnson, a denialist relies on cherry-picking of scientific data as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS." Let us take another example "The IRA is a terrorist organisation ..."[as may citations as you like] "Terrorist organisations are known to hijack planes and crash them into buildings"[lots of citations]. The IRA have never done such a thing, but in reading that anyone who did not know would assume that they had or wanted to (otherwise why mention it). It seems to me that this type of juxtaposition that makes an implied unsubstantiated union of facts is exactly the type that one would expect to find in a denialist paper and not one that one would expect to find in a well written non biased publication. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike terrorism or heresy, AIDS denialism is pretty clear, cut and dried - the evidence is unequivocal that HIV causes AIDS, and denying that fact makes you an AIDS denialist. Cherry picking is one of the methods.  But still, it's better to use sources that explicitly link to Johnson - though we must contextualize AIDS denialism to be the nonsense it is.   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WLU you wrote "Unlike terrorism or heresy, AIDS denialism is pretty clear, cut and dried." It is also cut and dried that the IRA bombed the Brighton Grand Hotel, whether it was a terrorist attack or not depends on ones point of view. In the words of Bruce Hoffman "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore". Once can easily substitute in the word denialism into that statement "denialism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." Like terrorism denialism is a tool employed in a propaganda war, which is easy to do because it is linked to "in denial" as used by physiologists and because denialism does not have a precise meaning. If not, why do some editors insist in using the term AIDS denialism (with it undertones of meaning linked to Holocaust denialism) in the first sentence of this section instead of using one of the alternative formulations I suggested above which would appear to say the same thing? -- PBS (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is not about terrorism, it's about Phil Johnson and this section about his denying that HIV causes AIDS. HIV causes AIDS, the scientific evidence is conclusive.  The comparison to terrorism is not appropriate, while the comparison to Holocaust denialism is.  The Holocaust happened, but despite this some groups attempt to cast doubt on this.  While terrorism often depends on one's point of view, there is no question that HIV causes AIDS and therefore anyone who denies this fact is an AIDS denialist.  Thus, describing them as such is appropriate and accurate.  That is why it is used here - it is appropriate and accurate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that "denialism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.", If as you say "anyone who denies this fact is an AIDS denialist" and AIDS denialist is not a propaganda term, then you should be equally happy to use the word "denies" rather than "denialist". Eg in "In the 1990s Johnson denied that there HIV is the cause of AIDS." which is far less clunky than "During the 1990s, Johnson was involved with AIDS denialism". -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a wording issue, being clunky, that can be changed. But AIDS denialism is accurate and should be linked, and if it is appropriate to use it, it should be used.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Philip. Also, the words contrarian and dissident are also used in many reliable sources. The appropriate context for AIDS denialist would be to note that these people are called that by critics. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Their critics are everyone, because HIV causes AIDS. There is a reason they are so heavily criticized, be it creationists and AIDS denialists - they assert unsupported opinions, and attack actual science, with a motivation other than actually trying to find out the truth about the world.  On wikipedia, the appropriate article to link to is AIDS denialism, and it's also an appropriate word to use on each page.  No easter eggs, particularly when the term is accurate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
In a recent edit, Freakshownerd wrote that professors are unwilling to discuss "Islamic terrorism". I should certainly hope so, as it's not clear what that is. We can all agree, I would hope, that it would be unacceptable if an editor characterised Johnson's positions as "Christian denial" or "Christian bigotry". There's no need to blame a religion for the actions of individual adherents. Let's leave our individual POVs behind when we log in and try to follow the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I wrote. That's what Johnson wrote. For some reason you keep lying and misrepresenting. I object to that entire section of cherrypicked quotes from a primary source. But if it's to be included, the context is important. Johnson was asked about 9//11 and was discussing its impact. Please stop disrupting article work and engaging in dishonest deception. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what you wrote, and you've made your own positions abundantly clear. If you wish to quote Johnson, quote him. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply see it as lacking context and adding little to the paragraph in question, which is why I removed it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but we write articles based on coverage in reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources on the page aren't reliable? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? Several sources are being misrepresented. What does your question have to do with this section discussing the cherrypicking and repeated misquotation of the article subject by Keepcalmandcarryon? Taking snippets and string them together in a way that pleases you isn't how we write articles. Find a secondary source that covers the issues you want addressed. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If a source is being misrepresented, present them. Otherwise, stop complaining.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute tag
Freakshownerd appears to be the only editor disputing the accuracy of the content here. Tags are meant to indicate an ongoing discussion; Freakshownerd is not discussing, only insulting other editors. As such, there is no valid dispute. Unless the tag-placing editor presents a detailed list of the alleged inaccuracies in this article, the tag will be removed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Four sources are cited for the statement that Johnson wrote that HIV tests don't test for HIV, but I can't find that statement in any of them, not could mastcell. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag that statement then, not the whole article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem of Darwinism being in quotes and not linked, Johnson being referred to as born-again rather than evangelical, scientific materialism not being linked, the group he belonged to not being named and instead being called an AIDS denialist group, and the POV statement that The scientific community dismisses Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS as pseudoscience, which is true for some of his views, on those subjects but not all. The toxicity of treatments is being investigated, the possible relation of poppers to one type of cancer are still being investigated, and other ideas and opinions he has offered on the subject have not all been rejected. Let's stop the POV pushing and misrepresentations, and stick to reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnson wrote that HIV tests are unreliable and indicate at most that the body has fought off HIV infection. In other words, that HIV tests detect past, not current HIV infection...if they detect it at all. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect what the man said, not your opinion of what he said. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Duesberg, denialism in general, or Johnson here? All of the AIDS denialist talking points you want to debate have been rejected by the scientific community. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "First example: official statistics show that the total number of HIV positive persons in the U.S. population has not increased an iota since antibody testing began; it has stayed at a flat one million...This study of Uganda villagers showed that those who tested positive for antibodies had a much higher death rate than those who did not, especially in the age group 25-34. Officials from the CDC and other AIDS agencies cite this study as proving that an AIDS epidemic caused by HIV is ravaging Africa...Moreover, it is erroneous to assume that the Ugandans who tested positive were actually HIV- infected, because on antibody tests are common, particularly in Africa. That this finding of mostly non-AIDS deaths among persons who may or may not have been HIV-infected was claimed to support the HIV theory of AIDS and the existence of an African HIV/AIDS pandemic is eloquent testimony to the closed mindset and intellectual dishonesty that rules HIV research."
 * "''Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS. Ever since 1984, when Gallo announced the discovery of what the newspapers call "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS," at a government press conference, the HIV theory has been the basis of all scientific work on AIDS. If the theory is mistaken, billions of dollars have been wasted-and immense harm has been done to persons who have tested positive for antibodies to HIV and therefore have been told to expect an early and painful death...AIDS is a syndrome defined by the presence of one or more of 30 independent diseases-when accompanied by a positive result on a test that detects antibodies to HIV. The same disease conditions are not defined as AIDS when the antibody test is negative. Tuberculosis with a positive antibody test is AIDS; tuberculosis with a negative test is just TB...There are probably thousands of cases of AIDS without HIV in the United States alone. Peter Duesberg found 4,621 cases recorded in the literature, 1,691 of them in this country. (Such cases tend to disappear from the official statistics because, once it's clear that HIV is absent, the CDC no longer counts them as AIDS.) In a 1993 article published in Bio/Technology, Duesberg documented the consistent failure of the CDC to report on the true incidence of positive HIV tests in AIDS cases. The CDC concedes that at least 40,000 "AIDS cases" were diagnosed on the basis of presumptive criteria-that is, without antibody testing, on the basis of diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma. Yet these diseases can occur without HIV or immune deficiency. Perhaps some of the patients diagnosed as having AIDS would have tested negative, or actually did test negative, for HIV. Physicians and health departments have an incentive to diagnose patients with AIDS symptoms as AIDS cases whenever they can, because the federal government pays the medical expenses of AIDS patients under the Ryan White Act but not of persons equally sick with the same diseases who test negative for HIV antibodies...The claimed correlation between HIV and AIDS is flawed at an even more fundamental level, however. Even if the "AIDS test" were administered in every case, the tests are unreliable. Authoritative papers in both Bio/Technology (June 1993) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1991) have shown that the tests are not standardized and give many "false positives" because they react to substances other than HIV antibodies. Even if that were not the case, the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself, much less the virus in an active, replicating state. Antibodies typically mean that the body has fought off a viral infection, and they may persist long after the virus itself has disappeared from the body. Since it is often difficult to find live virus even in the bodies of patients who are dying of AIDS, Gallo and others have to speculate that HIV can cause AIDS even when it is no longer present and only antibodies are left.''"
 * On those two articles alone, it is quite clear that Johnson adopts the "HIV tests look for antibodies, not HIV." There are two more articles linked I could search for, but I think this is pretty clear.  It's also a standard AIDS denialist tactic, one discredited long ago.    By going into excessive detail over the spurious objections of AIDS denialists, these objections are given undue weight when they should simply be noted as "wrong".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism of article
Keepcalmandcarryon continues to misrespresent what is and isn't in sources. This abusive behavior and the violations of BLP need to stop. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, do you think is being misrepresented? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He removed the dispute tag despite there clearly being active disputes. He restored wording that is not in thte sources cited. Darwinism is in quotes and not linked, Johnson being referred to as born-again rather than evangelical, scientific materialism not being linked, the group he belonged to not being named and instead being called an AIDS denialist group, and the POV statement that The scientific community dismisses Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS as pseudoscience, which is true for some of his views, on those subjects but not all. The toxicity of treatments is being investigated, the possible relation of poppers to one type of cancer are still being investigated, and other ideas and opinions he has offered on the subject have not all been rejected. Let's stop the POV pushing and misrepresentations, and stick to reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have to address the complaints when they are spurious. The only person disputing right now seems to be you, and your dispute seems to be spurious.  Johnson is a born-again Christian, see page 6.  And seriously - your other complaints are a lack of wikilinks?  That's your reason to revert and tag the page with disputed?  Really?  We're not supposed to use quotes extensively, we are supposed to summarize.  "Darwinism" is a term that creationists attempt to use pejoratively, and it should be used with caution - just like "evolutionist".  Both are meaningless terms since the appropriate term would be "bioligist".  Creationist on the other hand, is an actively pejorative term used to denote someone who believes the bible wins out over science.  It doesn't, and people who believe it does are practicing pseudoscience.
 * It's becoming clear that you appear to be here to right great wrongs - your belief that AIDS denialism has any merit, your belief that Johnson's position on evolution has any merit. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.  Johnson's opinions on AIDS, evolution, and almost anything but law, are meaningless and worthless.  Your statement about poppers and cancer is kinda irrelevant since neither term appears on this page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing a dispute tag is not a BLP violation. Failing to wikilink scientific materialism is not a BLP violation. Failing to link Darwinism, or putting it in quotes, is not a BLP violation. Describing someone as "born-again" rather than "evangelical" is not a BLP violation. Nor are those "abusive" nor "subtle vandalism" nor "misrepresentations". I'm kind of tired of trying to parse Freakshownerd's aggressive posts to look for valid concerns amid all the hyperbole and misstatements about policy. You (Freakshownerd) need to differentiate between "edits you don't agree with" and "BLP violations". Right now, you seem to think there's 100% overlap, which is erroneous. If you can't be bothered to distinguish and present your actual BLP concerns, then it's asking a lot for us to dig them out and parse them, all the while dodging the combative abuse that characterizes essentially every one of your posts. MastCell Talk 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a little sick of the goalpost moving too. Agree with MastCell's comments in toto.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * MastCell you wrote "Describing someone as "born-again" rather than "evangelical" is not a BLP violation". I think it is as it is dependent on how reliable sources describe the subject of an article, and how the subject of the article describes himself or herself. For example there are many evangelical Anglicans who would not usually consider themselves to be "born-again" Christians (baptism in the Church of England and all that). -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. In this case, reliable sources describe Johnson as "born-again" (e.g. Forrest 2001, MIT Press), so I'm not sure what the issue is. MastCell Talk 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, as with the other edtis noted above, you're cherry picking a hit piece from a philosophy professor who happens to be a critic of Intelligent Design to denigrate this article subject, which is clearly a BLP violation. Most sources identify Johnson as an Evangelical, since that is his faith. My understanding is that being born again is more about the process or epiphany of coming to that faith, and would be better to note in th earticle body. Adding scare quotes to established terms is also improper. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you believe that of the two sourced descriptions, "evangelical" is more appropriate for the lead than "born-again" because the latter focuses on process rather than result. We have just identified a content dispute, albeit a minor one. This is separate from an BLP violation. That wasn't too hard, right? :) Now, as to Forrest 2006, it is a work by a reputable, scholarly author published by a reputable academic press, which makes it a good source for our purposes. Your personal negative opinion of the source is really neither here nor there. Moreover, virtually all academics and professors are "critical" of intelligent design. You seem to hold the mistaken belief that if a source is critical, it ceases to be reliable or useable. MastCell Talk 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a hit piece from a philosopher opposed to intelligent design. If you want to include those kind of opinion sources, please make sure to include attribution. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said that already, but the Jedi mind trick doesn't work over the Internet. What makes the source a "hit piece", other than your personal dislike of it? Why should we suspend our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing, which normally welcome material from scholarly presses and academic authors? In any case, it isn't used to source anything particularly controversial, so I don't know that attribution would be necessary in any case. MastCell Talk 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When the authoer of a book is a leading critic on a subject, using that source and its descriptions isn't a very good approach. It tend to skew the article contents. Comprende? No jedi mind trick involved. Just a little ole common sense. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look through WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:V, you will find that being critical does not invalidate a source. In fact, WP:BLP takes the position that well-sourced and relevant material is appropriate for inclusion "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If the source is used for something that's actually controversial, we could discuss whether inline attribution is necessary. At present, that's a hypothetical. MastCell Talk 00:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Being critical and being noted for criticism on something are not the same thing. Surely you're not suggesting that we use Michelle Malkin to write the biography of Obama or Michael Moore as a source for the definition of Republican? That's just silly. It's like suggesting that drugs aren't immunosuppresive. Ridiculous. Absurd. Let's stick to relaible independent sources and attribute opinions as needed. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is spurious pseudoscience, this is the mainstream opinion. Forrest is a well-known expert on the intelligent design movement, and one of the best sources on them. Your definition would eliminate all sources critical of intelligent design (i.e. the ones by university press publishers) for being "biased". Here's a news flash - intelligent design is nonsense. It doesn't get an uncritical review. It falls very, very firmly under the NPOV policy sub-heading of undue weight and content guideline of fringe theories. This isn't politics where there are shades of meaning. This is science. Or at lest, evolution is. Intelligent design is a political and religious strategy to force (and that's totally accurate, it's brute force rather than actual theory) intelligent design into classrooms as if it were science rather than creationism dressed up in pretty clothes. So, we don't "tell both sides". We don't "try to be fair". We portray it as the nonsense, more accurately non-science, it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is highly polemical and for sure neither neutral nor objective demonstrated for instance by calling ID "neocreationism". Ironically Johnson gets accused of "equivocating" a bit later. --41.18.196.133 (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the polemic tone of the article strikes one immediately. Doesn't seem consistent with what I expect to find in Wikipedia in general.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.20.21 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't see it. Which parts? Can you give quotes?
 * Maybe the article just tells you truths you do not want to hear? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Reason in the Balance be merged here as a bare redirect for the following reasons: I am seeing little indication that the book had any substantive impact on the Creation–evolution controversy‎, so do not see the merit of an independent article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear to fail WP:NBOOK.
 * WP:MERGEs #3 (Text), & #4 (Context). The article on the book is extremely short, and offers no context or other useful, and has been tagged (by another editor) as its lead section (which constitutes half the article) "may not adequately summarize its contents."


 * Dont Merge, Im an inclusionist and the article can always be expanded and improved. Portillo (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are essentially saying is that you "don't like" any mergers -- which makes for a very uncompelling reason for opposing a specific merger. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the article has reliable sources, whats the matter? Portillo (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge, per Hrafn's reasons above. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 13:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge: same reasons as Hrafn. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 19:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

www.darwinontrial.com
I would note that this website is both (i) self-published, and (ii) a questionable source, so that it is not an appropriate source for material that may be deemed "unduly self-serving". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your right. Very self serving.
 * Reviews of Darwin on Trial
 * Critical Review by William Hasker
 * Critical Review by Eugenie Scott and Thomas Sager
 * Critical Review by Wesley Elsberry
 * Critical Review by Stephen Jay Gould
 * Critical Review by Nancey Murphy. Portillo (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * None of which reviews were cited in the article, so complete and utter irrelevant non sequitor. "More than any oneperson Phillip Johnson shaped the course of the origins debate in the 1990s." = "Very self serving." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason in the Balance
Reliable sources have been added for the Reason in the Balance article. Reliable sources is sufficient for a Wikipedia article. NBOOK says that a book must have been reviewed by sources independent of the book, which it has. 1. Portillo (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 5 of the 7 citations were for "Reason in the Balance is a book by former law professor and intelligent design advocate Phillip E. Johnson" -- i.e. for the bare fact that the book WP:ITEXISTS. I would further point out that the exact same point is made simply by listing it in the bibliography of this article.
 * 2) Reliable sources ARE NOT "sufficient for a Wikipedia article": "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:NOT)
 * 3) Only two of the citations were for reviews (neither of which was in a particularly prominent source), so it is marginal whether the topic meets WP:NBOOK.
 * 4) In any case, that a topic is notable does not prevent it being merged where it validly meets WP:MERGEs for doing so.
 * 5) We have a WP:CONSENSUS for a merge-as-redirect. Unless and until a contrary consensus is formed (e.g. via a WP:SPLIT proposal), this consensus needs to stand.

So reviews by Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, Publishers Weekly and philospher of science Michael Ruse dont establish notability? Portillo (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Assuming facts not in evidence' -- the only reviews cited in the article were in Reason magazine (Ruse) and Christianity Today. No, a publisher's blurb is neither independent nor a reliable source (as WP:RSN has found repeatedly) -- so adds nothing to notability. And thank you for ignoring my points 1, 2, 4 & 5. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So seeing how your the guardian angel of all the creation/intelligent design articles, whats it going to take to establish notability? Portillo (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm no such thing. But in answer to your question, a proposed-article that is several paragraphs long (as opposed to several citations for a single sentence), based upon several full-length reviews published in independent sources (with a strong preference for at least some that are both more prominent, and published by less in-the-trenches sources, than Reason magazineand Christianity Today), would be a very good start. Something along those lines would make a very strong case for a WP:SPLIT proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Weinberg quotation
The Weinberg quotation should not be in the lead, and if it is included in the body it needs to be much more nuanced. Including the fact that a Nobel Laureate has said something positive about Johnson misrepresents Weinberg's actual point - not that Johnson is an authoritative representative of a movement, but that the movement itself is disingenuous and wrong. Weinberg's overall point is not praise. Including this in the lead is way too much detail (particularly since it's not mentioned in the body at all) and does not honestly represent Weinberg's full opinion on Johnson or the intelligent design movement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So Weinberg saying that Johnson is "probably the most respectable academic critic of evolution", is not worth of inclusion? Is this because it is not allowed to say one good thing about an intelligent design advocate? I understand that Weinberg's comments are not praising Johnson, and I have no problem with making that clear, but he did say that. Portillo (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a book from 20 years ago. In that time, intelligent design has failed a legal challenge and once again creationism has shown it is not a challenge to evolution.  And the book it self states after that sentence fragment "...may currently be" - and again that was 20 years ago.  Creationism is not a challenge to evolution, and it's not an academic criticism, it's pseudoscientist.  Weinberg is politely saying Johnson may have the best credentials of all the pseudoscientist creationists available in 1992 and again goes on to say Johnson's opinions are not based on science but are in fact due to religious beliefs.  The article is better off without that statement, and particularly doesn't need "Nobel Laureat" in it.  If it is included, and I don't think it should be, it should be in terms of "Although Weinberg said Johnson was..."  But best is not to include it, since the meat of Weinberg's statement (from 20 years ago), the vast majority, is not "Johnson is great".  It is "Johnson is a religious zealot despite his credentials."  That is an honest summary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The age of the source has nothing to do with the credentials of a source. Even if you write, "Although Johnson may have the best credentials of all creationists," would still be better than dismissing it. Portillo (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why??
Why did WLU revert my edit?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked WLU on their talk page, which seems the right place to ask (WLU should have provided a meaningful edit summary). As to whether it was an appropriate revert, I think it was reasonable.  I don't see why we would quote a physicist on the subject of evolution.  -- Scray (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone reviewing Dark's contributions (there's less than 30 so far) should see immediately that his edits are not made in good faith. But specifically regarding that edit, there are numerous problems.  The source is old, preceding the incredibly important Dover trial which ruled intelligent design to be creationism.  Weinberg's overall comment regarding Johnson is not praise, so including the phrase "probably the most respectable academic critic of evolution" is inappropriate.  Really, what we have here is a Nobel Laureate pointing out, politely, that Johnson is essentially lying for Jesus.  Plus, as Scray points out, it's a book, by a physicist, about physics, that touches on creationism only to point out that it is not scientific.  I don't want to waste any further time on this or any of Dark's edits, since the effort is not to improve wikipedia.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with WLU. WLU is trying to suppress a point of view he disagrees with, and to censor Wikipedia. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Undue:summary of The Wedge of Truth
I've added a WP:Undue tag to the extensive summary of The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism which is currently being added: while a concise mention may well be appropriate, secondary sources are needed to show the significance, if any, of this particular book, and to show how the views in it have been received by the scientific mainstream. See WP:PSTS. Wikipedia's not for Summary-only descriptions of works, and article structure shouln't segregate out criticism. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I made some unwarranted assumptions. I assumed that since the book was an expansion of his paper that appeared earlier that it would be of significance.  (I have since done a quick search and found several dozen critical reviews.)  I also assumed that the readers were competent enough to know that when reading 'Johnson says' or 'Johnson states,' etc. that they would realized that that what followed was just Johnson's opinion and not necessarily truth.  I also assumed that the readers would appreciate a concise summary of the book so that they would not have to wade through the entire document to find the salient points.  Perhaps, Like Johnson's other book Darwin on Trial, this may be better as a page of its own.  --OtisDixon (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Religious Bias
1.129.96.146 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson, under the heading 'Criticism', regarding these two assertions: 1. "Johnson has employed numerous equivocations regarding the term "naturalism," failing to distinguish between methodological naturalism (in which science is used to study the natural world and says nothing about the supernatural) versus philosophical naturalism (the philosophical belief that nothing exists but the natural world, and adopts as a premise the idea that there is no supernatural world or deities)." 2. "Murphy had previously criticized Johnson's book Darwin on Trial for being "dogmatic and unconvincing," primarily because "he does not adequately understand scientific reasoning." These types of criticisms represent a common bias across all wikipedia articles. The word 'science' has always had broader meanings than merely the observation of natural phenomenon. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t) The word 'religion' must be applied to both 'naturalism' and 'humanism' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t). Historically, religion was always the first science in every culture. It is simply a false assertion to say that the study of religion is not science. In the 'western' world, it was monasteries and theological schools which were the catalyst for universities, and the leading universities of the world still have theological schools as core faculties. Murphy's arguments are themselves 'dogmatic and unconvincing' because she fails to reveal her own religious bias, whilst criticising someone else's religion. It is Murphy whose reasoning is scientifically incomplete. Murphy was working in a private theology college (Fuller) which openly publishes its theological position, so it is entirely reasonable that any staff member might be asked to leave if they were actively publishing contrary beliefs. By contrast, public (and many private) universities do not publish any particular theological position, and most commonly advertise that 'all' views are open for discussion and publication. Theologically 'open' universities have no logical basis nor moral authority to dismiss staff who espouse different theological worldviews. Yet, proponents of intelligent design have been coercively dismissed from such universities; thus acting against their own publicised standards. Any school, publisher (e.g. wikipedia) or author who fails to reveal their own religious bias is actively demonstrating their own ignorance on the most fundamental science through all of history in every part of the planet, and is being dishonest by hiding their position from the audience. Philip Johnson openly reveals his religious bias, which is exemplary academic practice, ranking the validity of his efforts far superior to this biased wikipedia article which does not declare its own religious bias. I do not know Philip Johnson, and have never read his book/s. My own bias is that I am thoroughly persuaded by the Intelligent Design argument and the Creationist position in particular. If nothing else, these are the most 'broad-minded' scientists who demonstrate greater understanding by recognising the fact that infinity/eternity, information and energetic matter all require origins outside of space-time; these are the questions which have driven all scientific enquiry for all time in all cultures. Even popular story-telling (like inter-special macro-evolution) is still driven largely by such questions. Such stories may be entertaining in the short-term, but they fail to provide reliable, intellectually satisfying explanations for practical existence or scientific prediction. ID/Creationists are also the only ones honest enough to admit their theological bias, where naturalists, humanists and deistic pantheists are the ones who most commonly try to hide their own religious bias. I encourage wikipedia to increase its otherwise exemplary authority by ammending not only the page about Philip Johnson, but all of their pages which dishonestly promote pantheistic religious bias. 1.129.96.146 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a common feature of pseudoscientists that the try to redefine "science" to include their own brand of sloppy thinking. You may think that it is 'broad-minded' and shows 'greater understanding' to have lower standards of reasoning, but real scientists do not.
 * There is nothing wrong with the sentences quoted above. They come from people who know science and have read Johnson. On both counts they know more than you. Your bias does not matter, and their bias does not matter. Bias does not enter into it. Science is defined by methodology and knowledge, not by opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Too late, but Behe is a major proponent of ID and he hasn't been fired. He just sticks to teaching broadly accepted science. If he would use a state university as a pulpit for evangelism, he would be fired, of course (separation of Church and State, the State providing the funds for the university). So, he may teach others about ID in his spare time, that's not the job the university pays him to do. As any other citizen, he may hold religious opinions outside of the university. So: he is not paid to teach theology and he is not paid to teach ID, as far as the university is concerned.
 * And why would anyone teach the false dogma that the theory of evolution is unscientific and it has been therefore overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community? That would make a mockery out of teaching epistemology. It would produce a generation of graduates who do not have the slightest idea about what science is about. They would become the laughing stock of the media (including conservative media catering at higher educated conservatives) and they would create cognitive dissonance among their flock (yup, condemning evolution in particular and science in general is one of the three major causes why young evangelicals leave the church, the other two being being harsh towards gays and lesbians, and churches indulging in political activism).
 * If she were to teach the conspiracy theory of why evolution became mainstream science, all serious philosophers would laugh at her and pity her, and that would include laughing at the seminary and feeling pity for it, yup, this includes laughs and pity from reputable Christian philosophers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * She is, broadly speaking, only condemned by those Christians who drank the Kool-Aid. Murphy is part of very select and influential committees, consisting of highly educated people who really understand science and philosophy, and she would have been publicly shamed if she chose to associate herself with ID. Her peers would have considered that she got Alzheimer's disease. She could not afford to kowtow to such ineptitude. Conservatives believe in objective knowledge, not in promoting patent inanity. One of the most heinous crimes a Christian can do is put Christ to open shame. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Initial summary paragraph
The statement "The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[5][7][8][9] " clearly violates the Wikipedia policy that "encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)" Changing this to " Many within the scientific community consider Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience." is more truthful, as there are scientists who do not consider Johnson's views, especially in regards to evolution, to be pseudoscience. In fact, one of Mr. Johnson's principle arguments is that there are two definitions of the word "science" being used in culture today, and since this is a biographical entry in wikipedia, his response to the view that his views are "pseudoscience" must be added in order for this article to read from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia policy states that "When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed". When i made my minor edit, I didn't delete wholesale what had already been there. However, that (deletion) is what was done to my edit. My edit was deleted in its entirety in the spirit that "undue weight" was given to "fringe" views. That is hardly the case. I didn't delete "The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[5][7][8][9]" Truthenthusiast (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, your proposal is wrong, and violates WP:NPOV by giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the fringe pseudoscience Johnson promotes. Your omission of the consensus point seem to be trying to give "equal validity" to his views. Also, Born again (Christianity) isn;'t the same as the broader description as Christian. The point about "materialist mythology" is covered earlier in the lead. If you want to add more, that should be developed in the body text and based on a third party source showing the mainstream view of his fringe views, not just "the-good-news/creation-and-evolution" interview. . . not clear why you seemed to be duplicating that source at the start. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, clearly you misunderstand the WP:NOV and WP:WEIGHT wikipedia policies. Replacing "the clear consensus of" with "many within the" is hardly an attempt to give "equal validity" to his views.  Would changing "many within the" with "the majority of" be more better in your view? It is clear that the way the lead is currently written is that the intention is to give the casual reader no reason to consider Johnson's viewpoints at all.  Intelligent Design Theory would fall under "questionable science" not "pseudoscience", as Intelligent Design is a hypothesis which has a substantial following.  Critics may describe it as pseudoscience.  However the way it reads now it is described as unambiguously pseudoscientific.  Wiki polcy states while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on a point, it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific.Truthenthusiast (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not any reasonable academic debate as to whether ID is pseudoscience, it's creation science relabelled. . dave souza, talk 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not creation science relabeled. Calling ID a relabeling of creation science then attacking it as a pseudoscience is attacking a strawman.  Obviously your definition of "reasonable" includes only positions which comport with your point of view, a vivid example of the very bias Johnson says lies within the scientific community.  The article still contains editorial bias towards your particular point of view.  The need for it to be fixed remains.Truthenthusiast (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As Dave said, "There is not any reasonable academic debate" about that question. Your opinion does not matter. The positions of experts who publish on the subject do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion Hob. Trouble is, your opinion doesn't matter either.  I think (or at least hope) that facts from a neutral point of view is what we all are striving for in establishing the wiki biography of Dr. Johnson.  It remains a fact that the article still contains editorial bias.  The fact remains that there are scientists within the scientific community that agree with Dr. Johnson's point of view regarding evolution, so it is not a "clear consensus".  The AIDS denialism is a separate issue and should be treated as such.  Truthenthusiast (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not require unanimity. And our Intelligent design article is quite clear that ID is creationism relabelled and is not a science, cited from multiple reliable sources in the fields of science, law, education, and philosophy. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the dictionary "Consensus means "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group". All scientists, as a group, do not agree with the summary as currently written, so yes, a "clear consensus" DOES require unanimity.  Again, accuracy, not opinions, should be the goal of everyone here.  "The majority of scientists" as opposed to "the clear consensus of scientists" is the truth, and the accusation that the change gives "undue weight" to his views is off base.  Remember, this is a biography of a person, not a forum to disparage Dr. Johnson Truthenthusiast (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus is clear on evolution, Johnson isn't a scientist and the handful of creationists with some scientific credentials (including Behe who's about the only cdesign proponentsist with claims to be a scientist) are too fringe to affect the consensus. . . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There we go again, redefining or picking less-scientific definintions of lay-language terms to include that which one wishes rather than using a scientific framework to discuss science. That's right in line with something being not really science as science currently stands. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There we go again? And you apparently think you know what I wish?  My only wish is that the lead in this BIOGRAPHY article be written from a neutral point of view.  Remember, this article is primarily a biography of a living person who is most noted for his views on evolution, not primarily an article to persuade the reader against his views.  A neutral point of view is not the same as the mainstream scientific point of view.  Therefore, the lead to the article should not conclude the way it does currently.   It can still describe the scientific consensus of his with the 4 citations, but since the article is a biography about Johnson, all I am saying that Johnson's views about the scientific consensus towards these views need to also be included in the lead.  A biography is an account of a person's life, not an account of what others think of a person's life.Truthenthusiast (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnson's views about the scientific consensus are included in the lead. As required by NPOV policy, it also shows how these views have been received by the scientific community. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The tag at the end of the 1st paragraph that, warning the reading that the scientific consensus, is against Johnson is not-too-subtle editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.165.171 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phillip E. Johnson. 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/20131021000249/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=397 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=397
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228190939/http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm to http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730105830/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0cb194b-51d3-4140-88f7-e4099445c554 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0cb194b-51d3-4140-88f7-e4099445c554
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220073757/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview to http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview

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) 23:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wedge Strategy/Wedge book and a sock puppet
I've taken out all the material about the book, I agree with user:dave souza but more importantly most of this was added by User:OtisDixon, a sock of a banned editor Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. All of their edits may be removed. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC) .

Adding that Ethanfgrant too. — Paleo Neonate  – 06:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020
Remove 'pseudoscientific' from the beginning since it says later that most scientists consider ID pseudoscientific. That’s enough. Wikipedia should not *editorialise*. David (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. There is overwhelming consensus to include the term. It is pseudoscientific and that is the most notable thing about his work.--Jorm (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020
Please change "The scientific community considers Johnson's defense of intelligent design to be pseudoscientific" to "Some in the scientific community consider Johnson's defense of intelligent design to be pseudoscientific" 130.65.254.15 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide significant sources to make this change.--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Theocracy
If the US would declare that it is objectively true that the Christian God exists, how would we call such political system? Theocracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all part of the grievance culture fomented by poor billionaires deprived of their right to freeze peach and oppress the masses; one nation underdog. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, my take was about a sourced change to the article, in case it needs discussion. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ask a rhetorical question .... ok, had a look and the pithiest quote was in Center for Science and Culture – the goals are "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." Modest aims, paraphrased in the Wedge strategy article, and sure looks like theocracy. . . . dave souza, talk 07:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! It's not necessarily God, it's just the Designer! Wink, wink. So, um... schediastocracy? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me of the frustration I experienced when I learned that "scientific facts" and anti-science apologetics, fed to me by the literature of the denomination I was raised in, were full of falsehoods. I would less distrust the organization today if it left science education alone and focused on universal values, faith, ritual and community (and understood traditional myths as symbolic and inspirational narratives)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No ID theory
"In his later years Johnson retreated from his contention that intelligent design was scientific. In an interview[72] in 2006 he described it as follows:"

This misrepresents Johnson's position. The source given does not say he does not think ID is scientific. He is just saying there is no theory of ID.

This was one of the most powerful responses to ID: "You say the theory of ID should be taught. So, what exactly is it?" Nobody could ever give an answer to that, since ID is just a loosely connected bunch of defective attempts at finding gaps in the theory of evolution and filling them with the God of the Gaps. The question met first with failed attempts at masquerading those as a "theory", then, after the refutation, with a quick change of subject. Then, Johnson admitted, many years later, that there is no such theory. But he still said that the Darwinist’s have to rely on a definition of science that does not permit an alternative to naturalistic evolution. That means he continued to (wrongly) categorize ID as science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My impression is also that the WP text misinterpreted the quote. What I personally read in the quote: a claim that it's in development by some scientists, that it's not mature enough to be able to refute or replace current scientific theories, or to be accepted as a scientific theory.  The above comment is also relevant, it may very well mean that it's the scientific community that's not ready for it (i.e. and is expected to eventually embrace "theistic science").  It would be nice if we had several independent sources to interpret these words for us, instead of having to guess...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia Principles
The pseudoscience term used as a qualifier of the Intelligent Design Movement is constantly being disputed by a number of scientists. Some editors of this article seem to be in violation of Wikipedia principles 2 and 3 as presented in this Website Dec 5th 2021 @ 12:50 am AST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgperez (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP entry on ID explains why it's usually not considered science. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I see their is a confusion between Creationism and Intelligent design. They are clearly not the same, to pretend otherwise raises some concerns on the precision and validity of the information presented in the first sentence of the article you just cited, i.e the entry on Intelligent Design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgperez (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ID is the stealthy mutation of the same thing. So, pretty much the same thing except for the makeup.
 * If you have reliable sources which say that ID is not pseudoscience, bring them. (I bet that "number of [anonymous] scientists" you postulate are either ID proponents themselves or not scientists at all or scientists in irrelevant fields who do not understand how it is done.)
 * Just flouncing your opinion does nothing but add you to the long list of pseudoscience fans who say on Talk pages about pseudosciences that this specific pseudoscience is not pseudoscience and that the article is biased. See WP:YWAB for examples. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023
Phillip Johnson lifetime work as a scientist synthesizing Intelligent Design was seminal to reminding the academic world that science has always been at the mercy of Faith in a Creator. Further, Johnson's anything but "pseudoscientific" efforts as the compass of the intelligent design movement was graciously pointing people to the unfathomable riches of God. 73.37.217.150 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, he was the opposite of a scientist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;that is the task of the Church, not of the university, not of the National Academy of Sciences, not of the Royal Society, and not of a country like US or UK. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)