Talk:The Design of Life

Merge?
If this book and Of Pandas and People are the same shouldn't the two articles be merged? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Different listed authors would seem to work against merger. This would seem to be major rewrite. I would suggest waiting to find out how different the two are, and how much publicity the new title generates, before deciding. HrafnTalkStalk 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Though originally planned as a third edition of Pandas, The Design of Life quickly took on an identity all its own. More than two-thirds of the material is completely new, and what remains of the original material has been thoroughly reworked and updated. Though there is continuity with the old book, The Design of Life is essentially a new book." -- From the book's preface. --Uncle Ed (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind
"The epilogue claims that the arguments in the book have been badly distorted and "stereotyped" by detractors, citing the film Inherit the Wind as a major example."

Inherit the Wind was made in 1960 -- almost half a century before this book was published. Are they really admitting that their arguments are that old? HrafnTalkStalk 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that it's Crearionism-revised-and-revested, I assume that the answer is yes.
 * I love this comment, "“Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science... “[e]xplanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations.”" -- if it isn't supernatural but not material, what is it? Stierscheisszwischen?  I suppose for those who so want a god and to be that god's creation, it makes sense in some mystical way.  Superstitio est radix malorum.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That really grabbed me too. It as though the supernatural, the miraculous and the immaterial are three separate things. And they just toss it off as though everyone knows this. What a crock...--Filll (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The way that they do it is to deny that the mind is material -- Cartesian dualism, which was given up on in philosophy of mind centuries ago. I can remember Paul Nelson using this argument a year or two back. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to find a way to work that into the article then. I am not sure how right now, but I think that it would be useful for readers. Unless one thinks that psychokenesis and maybe ESP and other phenomena are real (although no evidence exists for them), it is hard to ascribe much substance to this sort of reasoning. It is a neat trick, however, to somehow find a niche to slip intelligent design into, that hopefully it will not be subject to ridicule. We will soon have a huge taxonomy of this area, including

and so on and so forth. There are almost an infinite number of terms in this area, and so the Discovery Institute can dodge and hide for a long time in conjuring up all kinds of strange mechanisms for how it actually works.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * soul
 * immaterial mind
 * supernatural
 * preternatural
 * miraculous
 * numinous
 * mystical
 * transcendent
 * spiritual
 * magical
 * ethereal
 * mana
 * karmic
 * orgonic
 * aura

Back to Inherit the Wind
Found this on Googlebooks:

I'm not sure that the statement on this in the article is an accurate characterisation of the epilogue. HrafnTalkStalk 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have previously read that this is supposed to be college level. The table of contents also looks college level.
 * The epilogue is pretty biased, and nasty. Did it make it into print? I get the impression there is some quote mining involved.
 * surely there are some reviews by now???Filll (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Only review that I could find that was even half-way credible was this one on Afarensis on Scienceblogs a few days ago. HrafnTalkStalk 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but I am a bit reluctant to cite afarensis.--Filll (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, although a Scienceblog, its writer is anonymous & of unknown qualifications + it only concentrates on a single narrow aspect of the book. HrafnTalkStalk 05:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon Buell testimony
In Kitzmiller v. Dover pretrial documents, Buell said he would go to jail before allowing the drafts of this book to be part of the court record. Is this relevant? interesting?--Filll (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
The reception section is heavily biased in favor of the positive receptions. Should include negative ones as well Moridin12 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. We just don't have much material yet. I am sure we will have more eventually however.--Filll (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that it is now over a month since the book's publication, and it still hasn't received any substantive attention from the scientific community or the mainstream media. This means that it does not, as yet, meet the notability guideline for books. I'm willing to give it some more time, but if nothing further comes up in the next couple of months I would suggest merging it with Of Pandas and People. I am therefore replacing the NPOV-tag on the article with a notability one. HrafnTalkStalk 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I am looking forward to filling this article out, I have to say it is suffering from notability problems. Not even a single proper review yet. I am sort of shocked. Have people just become bored with the subject? Lets give it a few months. I looked very hard for reviews, and I will wait for a while and try again.--Filll (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that they saw the names Dembski & Wells on the dustcover and decided that debunking it was superfluous. ;) HrafnTalkStalk 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember an Infidel Guy session where he tried to a psychiatrist to debate Fred Baughman...out of some 20 no one gave a shit to waste the time (some just outright called him a quack), so there was no one to debate.  Voice -of- All  04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the enlightenment of regulars here, Voice of All is participating in another notability discussion connected to a WP:FRINGE topic that I've initiated -- that of the Biopsychiatry controversy‎, hence his psych references. Welcome VoA. :) Taking the topic a bit more seriously, I can't remember any biologist ever going to the trouble of rebutting Dembski, with the rebuttals mainly coming from mathematicians. I suspect the biologists have considered Dembski's qualifications/background too irrelevant to biology for them to bother with him. Wells has a slightly higher profile in biology, but not much of one. This is probably why the attention this book received was nothing like what Behe's Edge of Evolution received. HrafnTalkStalk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We've just had a second attempt to POV-tag this book over the lack of non-ID reviews. Unless this book gets some independent reviews/other attention soon, I'm going to template it for merger into Of Pandas and People. HrafnTalkStalk 04:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I think merging it makes sense. It is in fact Pandas and People in a slighly more modern tuxedo.  Wiki readers would certainly be better educated if the articles were merged.  Other than making fun of the dishonest scam dembski's people did to hype the book on amazon no one seems to be paying attention to it at all.  Angry Christian (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn. Please, lets find some more reviews, positive and negative. Hold off on merging people. This book is new and not enough people have looked at it yet. Remember they are very careful about where they sell it and how because they want it to get only positive reviews, and it has only been out a couple of months. I know of only one person with a copy and they provided me with some page scans which I have skimmed through. We will get more material, I am sure of it.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that there doesn't seem to have been any reviews since the initial flurry, I don't like your chances of finding any more. It's available on Amazon, so you could always try to get the National Center for Science Education to add it to their Amazon wishlist & pass it around to scientific reviewers (or even buy them a copy off your own bat). HrafnTalkStalk 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fill not trying to rain on your perspective but if you read the criteria for an article about a book TDoL meets zero of them. It's not like we'd ignore it as it would still exist, just not as a stand alone article.  I think TDoL having its own article gives the book far more credit than it has earned.  And there are no "positive" reviews either, those aren't reviews they're uncritical hype from within the ID cult itself.  And according to the publisher 1/3 of the content is straight out of Pandas and People.  If in fact it ever does get any serious attention from non-ID cultists/cheerleaders then you could spin it off into it's own article again.  I don't think that's going to happen, I suspect the science community is very comfortable ignoring a book written by a bible college teacher and moonie who's dedicated his life to overthrowing "darwinism".  Unless a public school district somewhere in Ignorant USA adopts this creationist, anti-science pig-fest I doubt anyone pays any attention to it.  Angry Christian (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, look at the offical Blog for TDoL. Only the morphodyke is posting there and hardly ANYONE is commenting on any of the entries.  Even the ID community seems to be ignoring this creationist pseudoscience text.  In short it appears Dembski and Wells threw a party and no one bothered to show.  Not surprising. Angry Christian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This text played a bit part in the trial, and so I added a bit more about that. There also is more material trickling in from other sources so I found another cite. Give me some time here.--Filll (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about John Kwok's review on Amazon? He's obviously noteable within the online/amazon world and has a better grasp of biology/evolution than Dembski or Wells. Angry Christian (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think Kwok is notable beyond online/amazon, so it would be difficult (per WP:UNDUE) to use his review (and unlikely to help establish notability per WP:NOTE). I've just run another Google search and still no WP:RS reviews. HrafnTalkStalk 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll can you explain why you don't want this version of Pandas and People merged with Pandas and People? No one is talking about the book, no one is buying it, no schools seem to  be using it.  No one but a handful of IDists and Moonies seem to care.  Oh, and last time I checked "Darwinism" is alive and well so in spite of what Behe suggested, Dembski's tome doesn't seem to be gaining any currencly in the scientific world nor has it overturned or even threatened "Darwinism" (ToE).  I'm not suggesting we delete it, I'm just saying we should combine it with Pandas and People.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect many of us who have watched ID for a few years have difficulty believing that, after all the buildup, this book has simply disappeared without making the slightest splash. It was mentioned at the Dover trial & was (re-)written by two of ID's most notorious propagandists, so it ought to be notable, and the fact that it isn't causes cognitive dissonance. HrafnTalkStalk 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You know you have a problem when you write a book that is claimed to unseat "Darwinism" and no one, I mean no one is talking about it except your blog partner, Denyse O'Leary. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone in the scientific community pays any attention to Dembski anymore, other than to make fun of his antics (farty videos, etc).  Besides, if you've read one Dembski book you've read them all.  Angry Christian (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have several comments. (1) I do not see what the rush is, since Wikipedia is not paper (2) The book has been published for between 2-3 months now, which includes the holiday season. There probably has not been enough time (3) This book is quite different than Pandas since a lot of the material and arguments are at least different, and adjustments have been made based on the Dover legal battle and changes in the DI's strategy, and the authors are different (4) If it is merged, there will be more difficulty in telling the story about this volume separate from Pandas, including reviews which will be coming, information about use, discussion of content. It deserves a separate article. If in a few months, it appears that no one cares about this book, I would reluctantly agree to have it merged.--Filll (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, we're coming up on the three-month mark now (less than a week away). We have on one side editors hitting us with NPOV-tags for not including (non-existent) critical reviews, and on the other FM repeatedly deleting the notability-template on the assumption that it's notable. Holidays can only account for, at most, one month of those three. It is time to admit that not only are we almost definitely not going to get a flurry of critical reviews, we're not likely to get any at all ... or any other substantial, reliable & independent coverage. That the book may be different from Pandas is hardly a reason for not merging -- it quite simply isn't notable on its own, and is of interest solely because of its relationship to Pandas. This volume quite simply does not have a WP:RS-verified story to tell. WP:NOT -- so we should go with the lack of notability that it does have, not the remote chance that it might become notable in the future. HrafnTalkStalk 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to maintain this as a separate article is that when someone searches for "the design of life" this is the first or second hit on the google search. Removing this article would not be helpful for this.--Filll (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but should we let the search for Google ratings overturn WP:NOTE and good editorial practice? Is a portfolio of good search ratings more important than a good encyclopaedia made up of good articles? I hope not. It is now a further month and still no WP:RS reviews as far as I can see. How much longer do you want us to wait before you admit that this book has simply made no verifiable impact? HrafnTalkStalk 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

college text?
Does anyone know if any colleges are using this book as a text? Fundy colleges or legit ones? Is the bible school where Dembski teaches using the book? Angry Christian (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to now?
FeloniousMonk in his own inimitable manner is reverting the notability-tag without any attempt at discussion. Contra to his bald assertions, this book has generated little interest either within wikipedia or outside it, and does not come even close to meeting WP:BK or WP:NOTE. I am getting heartily sick of all this. Can anybody come up with a good reason why I shouldn't simply nominate this article for merger into Of Pandas and People? HrafnTalkStalk 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A further point is how much mention has there been of The Design of Life have independent of its connection to Of Pandas and People? Certainly it wouldn't have been mentioned at Dover at all, if it weren't for this connection. This would tend to support its being a section in the Pandas article, rather than an article of its own. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the publisher 1/3 of it is straight out of Pandas...I say let the nomination (to merge) process run it's course. I'll chime in if you nominate it.  Angry Christian (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability
WP:NOTE states: that a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

The coverage cited in this article is:
 * a press release
 * Google Books for the existence of a different book of the same name
 * 5 to the book's/Dembski's/the DI's blog/website.
 * 3 to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎, where the book was briefly mentioned in connection to its predecessor, Of Pandas and People, but played no role independent of that book.
 * A short interview with Dembski on Focus on the Family's Citizenlink.
 * A TalkReason article on manipulation of Amazon reviews for the book.

This is not even close "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that this book has yet to engender a single independent substantive review, is a testament to how suspect its notability is (the closest we have is the very narrow Afarensis-blog review mentioned above).

WP:BK states:

I do not believe that the book meets any of these criteria, nor do I believe that any editor has even asserted that it does.

I am therefore re-templating this article for suspect notability. If notability cannot be established in a reasonable time, my intention is to propose the merger of this article into the article on its predecessor, Of Pandas and People. Any revert of this template based solely on the bare assertion of notability, and without directly addressing the above concerns, will be viewed as an act of bad faith and disruptive editing, and will result in immediate nomination for merger. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still agree that this book has yet to meet the critieria for notability and therefore believe it belongs with Pandas. Angry Christian (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Hrafn and Angry Christian. This book does not even approach general notability. I'm actually surprised to read that WP:BK list; I've seen several books with articles that completely fail the standards. It seems that in reality, the standards are: as long as its not self-published and has been mentioned somewhere by someone, it's good for WP. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, this book has not made near as much of a splash as I would have guessed.--Filll (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it did come with quite a bit of fanfare - "When future intellectual historians list the book that toppled Darwin's theory, The Design of Life will be at the top" - Michael Behe If you've read one Dembski or Wells book you've read them all and I suspect their followers have figured that out by now. I am a bit surprised that we have not heard of a single Christian school adopting this as a high school science text.  At one point Dembski was trying to market it as a companion to Expelled but I have yet to see any evidence of that happening.  Angry Christian (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One possible explanation is that it's targeted as a textbook rather than to the general public. This means that those likely to be buying it (fundamentalist private schools and home-schoolers) are unlikely to be influenced by the opinions of the ("naturalistic"/"evolutionist"/"atheist") scientific community. This may mean that scientists have not considered it to be worth their while seeking out a copy & reviewing it. Another new ID textbook Explore Evolution has gotten a bit more attention, but nothing like the reaction of (e.g.) The Edge of Evolution. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The result was merge into Of Pandas and People. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now more than four months since I raised the issue of this article's failure to meet WP:NOTE or WP:BK — particularly telling is its complete failure to generate even a single reliably-sourced and independent review. Voluminous discussion of this issue can be found in &. I am therefore formally proposing its merger into the article on its predecessor, Of Pandas and People. Given that both WP:NOTE & WP:BK both explicitly require evidence of notability to be reliably sourced, I would request that any assertions of notability be substantiated with reliable sources. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When future intellectual historians look back on this Dembski/Wells work of fiction, their funny bones will be forever tickled. No one, I mean NO ONE has paid any attention to this anti-science screed.  Merge!  Midnight Gardener (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I support a merger, as long as both titles are mentioned prominently in the introduction. However, I think it would be more appropriate to merge the older-book article into the newer-book article, rather than the other way round. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: the original is considerably more notable, as it featured prominently in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎, and has had considerably more written about it -- so would seem the more logical candidate for the base article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)