Talk:Stephen C. Meyer/Archive 1

Palm Beach Atlantic University???
Dr. Meyer is no longer listed as a faculty member of Palm Beach Atlantic University. http://www.pba.edu/Academic/facultylistings.cfm#M

Scholarship to Cambridge
I have his dissertation in my hand, and it says that the scholarship he received was from the Rotary Club of Dallas.

Education

 * As a graduate of the other collegiate university in the UK (Durham is not collegiate in the same sense), I was under the impression that a PhD student is a matriculated member of a specific college of the University. I can't find which college Meyer attended.  Any ideas?


 * I'm aware of a current Masters student at Cambridge who hasn't been affiliated with a college - they are officially a student 'of the department' in which they study - to whit, DAMTP. But yes, it is unusual. 131.111.213.33 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article
This article needs to be tagged for it;s atheistic bias. There is a mean spirited tone to what is supposibly a neutral article.


 * Exactly how does it have an "atheistic bias"? The content you insist on deleting it neutral, factual, supported and relevant. It does not assert any facts that aren't attributed or supported. FeloniousMonk 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. How can anybody think that labelling Intelligent Design "pseudoscience" as anything but "neutral?"  It is just beyond me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGeorgeW (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is Meyer called a theologian? He doesn't seem to have a degree in theology, and his Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.251.14 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias / Relevance
This section really doesn't add anything to the article. Is it really necessary? FeloniousMonk 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is seriously biased. I find it typical of those who have no answer to the design argument. Call names, site others that call names and misrepresent the facts, then tell us that we are the ones who misread the article. Sounds so much like the magesterium of the medieval church that it is not funny at all. I do not mind an argument but why is it so obvious to many of us that this article has been written by evolutionists who spend allot of their time attacking us and not actually solving the problem they claim to have an answer for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.131.156 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:KillerChihuahua
I agree that it is relevant, but it is stated formerly in the "Peer review controversy" section. there is no need for duplication, other than to editorially discredit the paper. When listing papers in a "Sceintific Paper" section, it is sufficient to list the papers. Any questions about the quality or validity about the paper are addressed in a previous section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggnate (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2006
 * Stephen Meyer
 * I will take another look. Please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ). KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it is relevant. The reader may not realize this is the paper mentioned in the controversy section above. I would support a re-wording, perhaps, but the way it was without the information, it read as though it had been published. It is misleading to the reader. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support a reference to the [edit]controversy, i.e. leave the blurb that says "see:Sternberg peer review controversy"

--Diggnate 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * END copied content *

I removed the duplicated info, but left the blurb referring to the Sternberg peer review controversy
 * You have not gained any support for this change. Please stop making it until and unless there is some kind of consensus for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting internal links and reference tags to this article
Edits I made adding reference tags to external links and internal tags to Wikipedia articles I felt would be helpful in explaining the complicated subjects being discussed have been reverted and called heavy handed and trivial; I will admit I got tired (and perhaps sloppy) after tagging the first dozen primary sources not meeting WP:RS and internal tags to numerous Title Of Something Listed In All Capital Letters But Is Red-Linked Because It Seems To Have No Presence Beyond This Page. Flowanda | Talk 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, links to such mindbogglingly relevant articles as seed money, grant & fellow. I suppose we should be glad you didn't link to the kitchen sink. HrafnTalkStalk 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing what those silly tags and bare external links actually bring up, especially when there's not a kitchen sink in sight. Seriously, though, I'm not a jerk and neither are you...rather than reverting and then redoing the reference tags, it would seem more helpful to either build on what on what I was trying to do or point out ways I could make editing easier for other editors. But, good grief, after adding reference tags to a dozen external links not meeting kitchen sink that would either need to be removed or replaced, I was exhausted barely halfway through the article. Flowanda | Talk 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-ref-ing from scratch was far easier than trawling through your grab-bag of garbage wikilinks & redlinks -- particularly given that your refs didn't bother to include anything useful like title, author, etc. HrafnTalkStalk 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing. Flowanda | Talk 12:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What Meyer is
Meyer is current an executive officer of a think tank. He's best known for his ID advocacy. He's also a founder of the ID movement, not just the CSC. Any intro that ommits these three points is simply wrong and lacking. Odd nature (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can find no evidence of him playing a leadership role in the movement prior to becoming co-director of the CRSC in 1996. However I have found (and included in the article) some evidence of his involvement in the movement prior to this. I still think that calling him a "founder" of it is an exaggeration (he was only one of 39 members of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee'), but this new information provides at least some cover for the claim. HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell
Has anybody seen any prominent reviews (or any notice at all outside the ID echo chamber) for this book? It seems to have 'hit the pond' with nary a ripple. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the atricle" Clearly defining what ID is and is not, Meyer shows that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or "giving up on science," but instead upon our growing scientific knowledge of the information stored in the cell."

This statement is clearly biased in favor of intelligent design and in my opinion should be removed entirely. It certainly does NOT represent a neutral point of view. 207.58.254.157 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While that section is a quote from the publisher, it is entirely self-serving and promotional so I went ahead and cut it. Auntie E.  16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced of the weight the criticism has been given is proper for a pseudoscientific subject, I still believe the beginning quote re-added without discussion is too promotional in nature, too self-serving and is better neutrally paraphrased. As this is a pseudoscientific topic and we have to be extra careful not to look as if we are promoting it. Auntie E.  06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"devastating"
I read this article for the first time and agree there is a negative bias. Perhaps the most flagrant example of this was the claim that Gould’s 1992 response to Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial was a “devastating” response. Gould’s response was so poor that in Johnson’s second edition Johnson stated of Gould’s critique, “That he [Gould] could do no better than a hit and run attack was an implicit admission that he had no answer on the merits.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGeorgeW (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't put new comments in the middle of a three year old thread.
 * 2) "devastating" is the adjective the cited source used, so it is not "unsubstantiated". I have therefore restored it.

P.S. Johnson's response is a nonsense. If the review was so poor, then an 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' would not have been needed to defend DoT against it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What was so "devistating" about Gould's response? Give me the raw data and the conclusion, and show me how the two don't fit. If they don't fit, I'm looking for violations of formal canons of logic. Let's get to the real merits of the arguments.

P.S. The P.S. you left is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.117.152 (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your WP:OR opinion as to "the real merits of the arguments" are irrelevant. We have a WP:RS from an acknowledged expert on the history of ID, and that is sufficient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merits of arguments are very relevant to determining if something is true. Now truth doesn't necessarily matter to Wikipedia nor contributers to Wikipedia, especially if it is a challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Photo
I can't find one on Flickr, but there are plenty on the web. If someone can track down a copyright holder and get permission that would be great. Richard001 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)