Talk:Project Steve

USAmerican?
 of our nation's public schools.

The phrase refers to "our nation", but the scientists listed are from several different nations. Bobby1011 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. The list is multinational, though the statement isn't, though no doubt all the Steves mentioned would oppose the teaching of pseudoscience in any school regardless of nationality or indeed whether it was a state school.  However, the US is a particular case because it's the centre of creationists' efforst and it also has the little problem of the establishment clause.  The NCSE is an American organisation.  btw, they also failed to mention religiopseudoscientific explanations for geology and cosmology in the text, but no doubt the Steves would oppose that too. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Parody? Not at all
Project Steve is a request to an authority (scientists), and is embodied by a document written for an audience of officials (school boards) as well as the general public and signed by numerous individuals, which according to Wiki is the definition of a petition. What Project Steve is *not* is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule or poke affectionate fun at either the work itself, or the subject of the work, which according to Wiki is the definition of a parody. Project Steve does not imitate nor does it attempt to satirize the subject of its petition, but rather it provides a serious rebuttal to it through a petition. Therefore Project Steve is not a parody but is rather a petition drive. This should be reflected in the article, so I have removed the word parody from Project Steve. Look at FSM and IPU - they are parodies, but Project Steve - despite it's "hip" title - is *not* a parody by its very definition. The use of the word parody in this article is contextual as a pejorative and as such is not in the spirit of Wiki. It should be removed...and so I have. We can not asperse an article with pejorative rhetoric just because we don't agree with it's subject matter. To do so is POV and is not what Wiki is about. Cheers, Astrobayes 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a parody. What other reason could there be for limiting the right to sign it to people named Steve? The point of the parody is to show that although creationists have been able to round up a number of scientists willing to state they have issues with evolution, there are a greater number of scientists, by a tremendous amount, who have no such issues. There are so many people who favour evolution, in fact, that there are a greater number of 'scientists named Steve who support evolution' than there are 'scientists who no not support evolution'.
 * Project Steve does in fact ridicule something: the creationist petition. It is to be taken serious, as Flying Spaghetti Momsterism is, but it is not a serious rebuttal. It is tongue in cheek. -- Ec5618 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again, that "Project Steve is a request to an authority (scientists), and is embodied by a document written for an audience of officials (school boards) as well as the general public and signed by numerous individuals, which according to Wiki is the definition of a petition," as I've stated above. Where is the verifiable source you're using to say it is a parody?  By the very definition of a petition as given in Wiki, P.S. is a petition drive.  I'll agree that P.S. imitates the creationist's petition drive, but the statement that drives P.S. is not satirical.  It's a very serious statement.  However, this may be splitting hairs and Project Steve stands on its own merit so I'm going to just let this go - there are bigger problems in Wiki to solve. :D  Perhaps I'll come back to this article another time. Astrobayes 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not using the word parody but in response to the Q "is this some kind of joke" they say: 'Yes and no', 'in a lighthearted manner' and '[we realize] that science is not conducted by voting'.
 * I'ld say that fits well enough in the wikipedia definition of parody.
 * Your "verifiabe source": the FAQ of the project itself (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp)! Arakrys 213.84.114.40 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bart says: "Hawking's cool!"

 * Stephen Hawking (who, like Gould, is so eminent that he has appeared on The Simpsons)

Oh, please people – so references in popular culture are the measure of a scientist? – Tintazul msg 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientists named Steve, maybe. Apparently, as they waste their time with this stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a "See Also" section
I'm not completely sure how appropriate my addition of Flying Spaghetti Monster was to the list, but the lightharded critisism of intelligent design/creationism is there, so I figured it counted as a similar vein. If my referencing it is POV or otherwise problematic, though, feel free to remove it. IMFromKathlene 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons opinion
"Stephen Hawking (who, like Gould, is so eminent that he has appeared on The Simpsons [3])"

Although I agree both Hawkings and Gould are eminent, I don't think it is the place of an encyclopedia to make the assertion that their eminence is the causal effect to being featured in the simpsons. Also, this quote is more fitting of a profile of Gould, not project steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.138.113 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 February 2007


 * Ok I edited it slightly. I did not write this, and it is not particularly encyclopedic, but it is a slightly wry nugget. Perhaps we should remove it, however. I know you think we are mocking Project Steve, but lets face it: Project Steve is already sort of tongue-in-cheek, no?--Filll 04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We are dead serious! And I want to be on the Simpsons, too! --Stephan Schulz 07:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tipani
I found a reference showing that Tipani was the Finnish equivalent of Steven, and I thought it gave some variety in the names. It is not good? I agree we should not overdo it. However, the only reason I put in the Finnish reference was that its true nature was questioned.--Filll 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Tapani, I believe. That's what Tapani Salmi told me, and various sources, including the wikipedia entry for Stephen, vouch for it. By the way, that entry fails to mention Project Steve.--Glenn Branch 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Scott (or the NSCE)
Would you please stop propagandizing for Evolution on wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisey cutter (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keeping a Wikipedia article current is propagandizing? DC, meet Humpty-Dumpty. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, they changed the date, and the number from 818, to 820. Joseph Goebbels himself would be in shock. :S Lightnin Boltz (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notice filed
Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisey cutter (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And in one day, the COI complaint was archived with, "No tendentious editing" as the comment. Way to waste time, DC. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the consensus seems to be that it is not a conflict of interest for NCSE to update the Steve count, I will continue to do so while that consensus obtains. Note that all anonymous updates of the Steve count from 66.47.51.78 were mine; in the future the updates will be signed by me. --Glenn Branch 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Public notice of Project Steve
There was an erroneous statement on another article that Project Steve was non-notable. Just to keep things clear, I'll list off public notice of Project Steve here. The first batch is taken straight from NCSE's page, which was last updated in 2004. The public notice of Project Steve did not stop then. --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Mirsky in The Scientist Bringing in the Steves]

Larry Witham in the Washington Times "Steves" support teaching of evolution [no longer available on-line]

Jill Tucker in the Oakland Tribune Darwinians crow over satirical Steve factor [no longer available on-line]

Anna Davison in the Santa Barbara News-Press Scientists discover the power of Steve [no longer available on-line]

Kristen M. Neufeld in the Pennsylvania State University Collegian "Project" asks biologists to show support for "Steve-olution"

Press release from Western Michigan University Stephens and Stephanies support teaching of science

Jim Brown and Jody Brown of AgapePress Scientific "Steves" take a swipe at creationists

Jim Brown of AgapePress Anti-creationists backed into a corner?

Steven W. Buskirk (Steve #187) on Wyoming Public Radio's Wyoming Today Wyoming Today [scroll to February 17, click for audio file]

Cornell Chronicle CU’s Stephen Ellner is among signatories to pro-evolution statement [page 6]

Constance Holden in Science 's Random Samples column Steves for Darwin [available only to subscribers]

Steve Jordahl in Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus Scientists lampoon creation science]

Rachel Robson in the University of Kansas's University Daily Kansan Defend evolution publicly to avoid mass acceptance of creationist theory [no longer available on-line]

Deborah Inkpen in the Memorial University of Newfoundland Gazette "Steves" supporting the teaching of evolution

Ross Clark in the Times of London How the scientists are making monkeys of themselves [available only to subscribers]

Alan Boyle in MSNBC's Cosmic Log Theory of Steve-olution Postscript Letters on "Steve-olution" and "Silent Planet"

Jessica Tom in the Yale Daily News [http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=21961 "Steve" profs. collaborate to support teaching evolution]

Stephen Evans in the University of Pittsburgh's Pitt Chronicle Pitt prof among 200 "Steves" to sign evolution agreement [no longer available on-line]

Karen Hoffmann in Carnegie Mellon's The Tartan "Project Steve" argues for evolution via manifesto] [no longer available on-line]

Ryan Meehan in the University of South Florida's The Oracle Is it really so black and white?

TechTalk, published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steves speak out for evolution education

Robyn Williams interviewing Eugenie C. Scott on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's The Science Show The Steve Project [transcript] The Science Show's [javascript:showpic('stevesong.html')]Steve Song]

Chris Mooney's "Doubt and about" column for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal The skeptic's message lab [twelfth paragraph]

"Strange but true tales from the world of science" column in New Scientist Steve's army

The Geological Society's Media Monitor Would you Adam and Steve it?

Steve Mirsky's "Antigravity" column in Scientific American Doing what comes unnaturally

David Derbyshire in the Telegraph Scientists called Steve show the dissent of man

University of North Carolina at Wilmington's Campus Communique Focus on faculty [last paragraph]

Margaret Pizer in American Scientist The Steve wars

The Campus Inquirer (the monthly newsletter of the Campus Freethought Alliance) Scientists named Steve join to support theory of evolution [no longer available on-line]

Karl Giberson in Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology America's culture "war" becomes complex [final three paragraphs]

Thomas E. Phillips in Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology "Project Steve" has evolutionists laughing

Ron Barnett in The Greenville News (South Carolina) Debate over evolution might be heard again in halls of state government

Glenn Branch and Skip Evans in Geotimes All about Steve (and Darwin)

Ben Goldacre's "Bad science" column in the Guardian Drugs and water [third paragraph]

Steve Mirsky in the HHMI Bulletin Stevolution

Skeptic Evolution endorsed by Steves [not available on-line; see vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 14-15]

UC Davis Biological Sciences newsletter Joining a Steve-o-lution [PDF; page 6]

Ian J. Wilson, writing to the editor of the Columbus Dispatch Science and religion don’t have to fight

Dan Whipple and Geoffrey O'Gara in the Caspar Star Tribune Can't test theology

Linda Seebach in the Rocky Mountain News Evolution-touting scientists make point with Steves list

Eugenie C. Scott, Nicholas J. Matzke, Glenn Branch, et alia in Annals of Improbable Research The morphology of Steve Note: this is a starred article. According to AIR, "[t]he features marked with a star (*) are based entirely on material taken straight from standard research (and other Official and Therefore Always Correct) literature."

Bob Park in the American Physical Society's "What's New" Project Steve: The evolutionary advantage of being "Steve"]

George Bryson in the Anchorage Daily News Educator's dilemma: Teachers try to explain evolution without offending religious students

Daniel Engberg in the Chronicle of Higher Education Major breakthrough in Steve research [available only to subscribers]

"Strange but true tales from the world of science" column in New Scientist The morphology of Steves

Linda Valdez in The Arizona Republic Creator won't rest in bashing of Darwin Gillian Gillers in the Yale Daily News Geophysics prof nets honor [final four paragraphs]

Jerry Adler in Newsweek Doubting Darwin [page 3]

Gerard S. Walen in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Should public schools teach alternatives to evolution theory? [page 3]

Dan Gardner in The Ottawa Citizen "Project Steve" takes aim at the creationist agenda [available only to subscribers]

Deidre Pike in Reno News & Review Evolution revolution

Deidre Pike in Las Vegas City Life Evolution revolution


 * It should be noted that the above contributor is the former minister of misinformation for the NCSE, and may have had a hand in creating the Project Steve publicity stunt. Jebitbushet 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Watch your POV or you will be blocked and/or banned.--Filll 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of the notability of Project Steve is not affected by my past employment history, nor by personal involvement in the project. Jebitbushet likely understands that documented notability cannot be directly gainsayed, which explains the try at shooting the messenger.


 * I wish that I could claim a more direct role in Project Steve, but I was more a facilitator than a principal in that effort. The idea had its origin in discussions on email lists that I host, Matt Inlay came up with the name, and Skip Evans at NCSE did most of the work involved. One may note that I was not one of the people whose names graced the AIR article on the morphology of Steves.


 * If Jebitbushet would care to back up his claim that I've ever been a source of "misinformation" by providing actual documentation, I'll entertain that discussion over at the After the Bar Closes forum. Until then, I'm filing the slur under "meaningless noise". --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement?
The 9/11 "truth" movement seems as fond of compiling lists of experts as creationists. Does it deserve a mention in the "see also" section? --Cchunder (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that 9/11 truth is a bit far removed from creationism. It probably would be frowned on.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential refs relating Project Steve to climate change denialism
These are from this list: At minimum, they show that this article should have some info (perhaps just links) related to climate change denialism. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "And just as the Discovery Institute has a Dissent from Darwin petition, which attempts to cast doubt on “natural selection and random mutation being able to account for the complexity of life,” global warming skeptics have their own list as well."
 * "Last month's announcement that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize would be awarded for efforts to elucidate and publicize climate change was final confirmation for many Americans that global warming is real and not, as skeptics had claimed, an issue of scientific debate. Too bad the American public won't give the same support to evolution."
 * Brings up Project Steve in this context.
 * Not that we'd use it, but it's an interesting bit of denialist propaganda. As already noted in the comments below, it points out that Steven Chu signed Project Steve.
 * Compares the Oregon Petition to Dissent from Darwinism, pointing out Project Steve in this context.
 * which refers to:
 * "Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."
 * "Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"
 * "Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. "
 * Refers to the Morano list.
 * Shows how climate change denialism is joining evolution denialism in education.
 * "Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."
 * "Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"
 * "Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. "
 * Refers to the Morano list.
 * Shows how climate change denialism is joining evolution denialism in education.
 * Shows how climate change denialism is joining evolution denialism in education.
 * Shows how climate change denialism is joining evolution denialism in education.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project Steve. 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/20060810185433/http://shovelbums.org/content/view/156/527/ to http://www.shovelbums.org/content/view/156/527/

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) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * StephenJayGould2.jpg

Is the article from a neutral point of view?
The article is from a neutral point of view. The writer uses their words well and makes sure that the article stays neutral throughout the entirety of the article. It was very well written and I enjoyed reading it! Dwr002 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)