Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Other articles to link to

I feel that in the "See also" section, there should be links to the evolution and evolutionary creationism articles. This would help give the reader the two opposing views, Creationism and evolution, and two more moederate views, Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Creationism. Also, one may argue that there is POV by only having Inteligent Design without any evolution links in the "See also" section. User: Mred64

Proposal for Balanced Intro

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents believe that this conflicts with the position of mainstream science. They also believe that the debate thus revolves around the nature of the poltical campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of mainstream science as expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution:

"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. . . . Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."[1]

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate on-going debates in the scientific community. They note that some of the problems that were acknowledged by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species,[2] [3] [4] are still actively debated in the current scientific literature.[5] [6] The proposed policy, including issues to be analyzed by students can also be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan and the peer-reviewed scientific literature to which it makes reference.[7] [8] [9]


--VorpalBlade 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The proposed intro appears overly sympathetic the TTC POV and lacks the critical balance that is present in the current intro. Of particular note it omits any mention of the specifc nature of the controversy surrounding the TTC agenda, as found in this sentence from the current intro: The current debate revolves around the intentions and methods of the "teach the controversy" movement in their attempt to secure a change in current educational policy. There's way too many outside links, and several seem to be less than accurate/neutral at first glance.

Considering this, I can not say it is an improvement over what is up now. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

in moving toward resolution, would you be so kind as to list your specific issues with the intro, provide alternatives, and explain why your alternative is more in line with npov guidelines than the present one? Ungtss 19:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
List my specific issues with the proposed intro? Um, I just did. As for proposing an alternative, as I said, the current one is better, and I'm uncertain I could improve on it at this time. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

current intro

<<The Teach the Controversy political action movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools concerning the teaching of evolution.>>

this is unacceptably vague. the first sentence should identify exactly what that policy is. the alternative does so, and is therefore superior.

<<Advocates believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is.>>

this is in his version.

<<This position conflicts with that of mainstream scientists and educators. They believe that the debate revolves around the nature of the poltical campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of the mainstream science is expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution:>>

this is in his version.

<<"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. . . . Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."[1] (http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp) The current debate revolves around the intentions and methods of the "teach the controversy" movement in their attempt to secure a change in current educational policy.>>

this is in his version.

absent from the intro is any statement in support of the substance of the ID position. since there is information against this view, there should be a brief statement in support of it. the mainpage version lacks one. the alternative has it. the alternate is therefore superior.

have at it, boys. Ungtss 20:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've wriggled out, yet again, of responding to my points — responses that would have had to be clear and simple, rather than involving the mass of icnhoate verbiage with which you've filled this page. You see, good faith is something that should be assumed in the absence of any reason not to. Unfortunately you and VorpalBlade have provided so much reason not to make that assumption, that to make it now wouldn't be generous, it would be deeply stupid.
i will no longer be drawn. Ungtss 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I've failed to draw you into answering my perfectly straightforward questions so far, you hardly surprise me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i will no longer be drawn. Ungtss 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As to your claim here, it doesn't stand up: "since there is information against this view, there should be a brief statement in support of it". Wikipedia is in the business of providing information; it's not in the business of making statements in support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in the business of providing information. attributed views pro and con are both appropriate and essential on controversial topics. currently, the intro you're supporting provides only information "con." that is pov by definition. the deliberate exclusion of the views of those about whom the article is written is sheer censorship. Ungtss 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So write the summary, and put your suggestion here. then we'll have something clear and concrete to talk about. If you'd simply like one of the pre-existing summaries, put that here, and it can serve the same purpose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

proposal

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting students with what ththe movement believes to be scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is taught, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents believe that such a policy is inappropriate, because there is in fact no substantive controversy, as the scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact evidenced beyond dispute. They also believe that the debate thus revolves around the nature of the political campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of mainstream science, as expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution, is:

"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. [...] Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science', 'scientific creationism', 'intelligent design theory', 'young earth theory', or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."[10]

Proponents respond by saying that they only want to teach the scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate the issues, and that, even accepting the view of the scientific community, a discussion of the arguments made for and against it will only lead to a more rigorous and thorough understanding of the issues involved. The proposed policy, including issues to be analyzed by students can also be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the peer-reviewed scientific literature to which it makes reference.[11] [12] [13]

I've tidied the English of the proposal. My main worry, off the top of my head:

"Opponents believe that this conflicts with the position of mainstream science."

Is this what critics say? It's surely at best ambiguous.

i think you're right. i tried to clean it up. what do you think? Ungtss 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do others think of the proposal? If we can agree on this, then we can go on to the rest of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not ready for prime time yet. It still fails to mention: 1) TTC is not just any old movement, but a political action movement. The fact that it's a PAC is not insignificant and needs to mentioned to understand the nature of the movement. 2) the majority of the criticisms of the TTC policy; that the policy is an attempt at reintroducing creationism into the classroom under the guise of putatively non-theological intelligent design and that there is no controversy to teach.

I'm working on a rewrite that includes these three points which are necessary. FeloniousMonk 21:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An enormous paragraph devoted to Opponents POV and a quote from 1973, and no mention of the Ohio Model Lesson Plan of 2004? This is an important fact, not speculation, it gives examples of the evidence and issues to be analyzed and how (responding to Opponents claims), it contains refs to the relevant scientific literature, and it is the leading document framing the debate. There is no reason not to include it.--VorpalBlade 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've remedied that in my new proposal. Both were red herrings anyway, and not the real issues.
I think this re-write is another example of propaganda. Creationists like to imply that evolution is dogma, i.e. beyond dispute; hence the phrase appears here. Of course, evolution is not a fact beyond dispute. All knowledge in science is provisional and therefore subject to revision, but evolution is the theory with the greatest explanatory power at present. The rest of the material tries to give the impression that there are two opposing factions and that their opinions should be given equal weight, but does anyone really think that the views of a small creationist think-tank, funded by a rather odd advocate of theocracy, are as important as the consensus of the the whole scientific community?Ian Pitchford 22:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. First, this is a summary, not the whole article. Secondly, we're committed to presenting a NPoV article; that doesn't mean giving unequal views equal prominence, you're right — but it does entail giving both views fairly. I agree that all this creationist stuff is absurd (and, to be honest, rather boring; it replaces the excitement and wonder of science with the unchanging bare claim that the cause of everything is beyond our understanding — the only real excitement they get is playing political games with schoolchildren's education), but we mustn't let our opinions override Wikipedia policy. The creationists already think that anyone who is neutral is biased against them; we have to be scrupulous in our neutrality. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal II

Teach the Controversy is a Discovery Institute program. It is a political action movement in the United States which proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.[14]

Still propaganda. Advocating "presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution" implies that there is evidence aginst evolution that is being suppressed, i.e. we're back to dogma and the views of the unnamed Chinese paleontologist about censorship in the US again but without referring to them specifically. Ian Pitchford 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is far from what I would call neutral, but I can live with this version. This is the best version so far (besides my own) and Monk shows a good faith effort to balance. --VorpalBlade 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the nod and duly acknowledge that it seems to me you too are willing to work in good faith to reach consensus. Let's next consider the proposed methodlogy for moving forward, and revisit this later. FeloniousMonk 00:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion

SUBJECT: This article is about a movement, a loose organisation of affliated beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., that all have a specific POV.

SOLUTION: Edit this article by removing all material that does not identify the momement, who belongs to it, how it is organised and by whom and what its core beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., are:

  1. statement one
  2. statement two
  3. statement three

CRITICS:Then, have a section underneath stating who its critics are and why they do not agree with the movement. Otherwise this will become (has become) a blog rather than an article. The solution is very simple and it can be performed right now!

Take a vote right now. If everyone likes the idea and will play fair, unlock the article and immediately remove the critis and state the 1, 2, 3 of the organisation. Make a section for the critics and DEMAND that the critics are very specific in their factual criticisms. MPLX/MH 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC0


I couldn't agree more. Thank you. --VorpalBlade 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You, sir, are my hero:). Ungtss 01:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to Suggestion and Votes Above

As Robert M. Young has often pointed out power often lies with the person who defines the situation. In this case the power to define the situation in the US public school system as one in which evidence against evolution is not taught lends legitimacy to the campaign to coerce biology teachers to teach something other than the position of mainstream science. Of course, members of the “teach the controversy” campaign want to claim that they are only arguing for the evidence to be taught and critically evaluated in schools, but the very existence of a campaign with those aims as stated implies that the majority of educators are either incompetent or corrupt, i.e., allowing the proponent’s definition of their aims to stand doesn’t contribute to the debate or to understanding of any kind but of itself ends the debate by acceptance of a thought-terminating cliché. Absolutely no one disgrees with “teaching the evidence”, but only a very, very few agree with “teaching the controversy” and so it’s pretty fundamental that these two phrases must not be equated if we are to give two hoots about the integrity of the US educational system.

With regard to the material presented under the heading “Square One” the following phrases are standard creationist propaganda

  • ”contemporary Darwinian theory” – educators don’t teach “Darwinian theory” they teach contemporary evolutionary biology in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community. That consensus is challenged by contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, not by political campaigns or sloganeering.
  • ”the growing controversy over biological origins” – the theory of evolution isn’t a theory of origins. Creationists like to give the impression that it is so that people are left with the choice between either creation or evolution, i.e. either you can be a decent god-fearing person and choose creation or you can side with the evil materialist teachers and scientists by choosing evolution. Even mainstream Christianity doesn’t accept the position that there is a conflict between belief in God an acceptance of the theory of evolution.
Anyone interested in the scientific consensus on the other items of propaganda in the article regarding the Cambrian explosion, natural selection etc can simply read the relevant reports produced by the National Center for Science Education or the detailed responses archived at talkorigins.org.
  • ”intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins” – ID is not a new theory of origins - it was proposed by William Paley in 1800, and as I mentioned above we are not dealing with two opposing theories of origins here, that is simply the fundamentalist assertion.
  • ”scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism” – evolutionary biology is not based on “Darwinism” orthodox or otherwise. This eponym is used specifically to imply that evolutionary theory is based on dogma.
  • “polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution” – of course they do, but “Darwin's theory of evolution” isn’t taught in schools, if it were students would know nothing of genetics, which does not appear in Darwin’s theory. Educators teach contemporary evolutionary biology!

Just as MPLX/MH says “in America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all” and the “teach the controversy” movement shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it by the use of clever phraseology and by misrepresenting what educators and scientists do. Ian Pitchford 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, on all points. FeloniousMonk 13:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Intro based on MPLX'S suggestion

Teach the Controversy is a movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. It is a loose coalition of various groups and individuals, but the leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.


--VorpalBlade 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

This is basically Monk's first sentence (which I think is better than my original one) and another sentence saying who the leading proponents are.

I took out "political action" because a biology teacher who on her own adopts the teaching model is part of the movement, and that is not "political action." --VorpalBlade 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track. But rather than name the leading people last, name them first and explain in 1-2-3 order who triggered the creation of this movement; when they created it; how they created it and why they created it. Just fill in the blanks. It is very NPOV and depending upon whether more than 2 people started it and belong to it and whether the movement has made enough of a splash in the media to be mentioned, will determine whether it is encyclopedic. To prove that point you also need to remember to include a section for:

See also:

I agree with both points here, with one exception. That TTC is a political action movement is a fact. The intro needs to include that fact. Those who work collectively to advance TTC as a policy and those who codied the TTC strategy do so a PAM, irrespective of the motives of individual's who choose to implement it. I'll have to insist on this point being part of any intro. FeloniousMonk 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References

  • books, newspapers, etc.

External References

  • links to outside web sites.

MPLX/MH 03:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


SQUARE ONE

Well it took some searching but I finally "discovered" that this article is really about a program of the Discovery Institute. So I followed the links on their own external site and came up with this outside and independent description. It seems to me that what we have here is an ad hoc association of people who subscribe to a particular viewpoint. This is how a newspaper tried to interpret it for its readers - as it was reproduced on the Discovery Institute web site. I have highlighted the key words to show where they are mentioned (and to prove that I actually read it!:

Teach The Controversy
By: Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell
The Baltimore Sun
March 11, 2005
  • What should public schools teach about life’s origins? Should science educators teach only contemporary Darwinian theory, or not even mention it? Should school boards mandate that students learn about alternative theories? If so, which ones? Or should schools forbid discussion of all theories except neo-Darwinism?

These questions are now arising frequently as districts around the country consider how to respond to the growing controversy over biological origins.

Of course, many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. On the one hand, if science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. On the other, if teachers present religiously-based creationism, they run afoul Supreme Court rulings. Either way, it seems educators face a no-win situation.

So what should they do? Is there any approach that will satisfy—if not everybody—at least most reasonable people?

Surprisingly, there is a way to teach evolution that will benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme ideologues.

Rather than ignoring the controversy or teaching religiously-based ideas, teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution.

This is simply good education.

When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives.

In such cases teachers should not teach as true only one view—just the Republican or just the Democratic view of the New Deal in a history class, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."

But is there really a scientific, as opposed to just a cultural or religious controversy, over evolution?

In fact there are several significant scientific controversies about key aspects of evolutionary theory.

First, some scientists doubt the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (530 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or "phyla" (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors. Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms—not the gradual “branching-tree” pattern implied by Darwin’s common ancestry thesis.

Other scientists doubt the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale “micro-evolutionary” variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life. Over 350 scientists, including researchers from institutions such as M.I.T, Yale, Rice, and the Smithsonian, have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.

Finally, some scientists doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely “appear” designed. Instead, they think that living systems display tell-tale signs of actual or “intelligent” design. Prominent scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe and former San Francisco State University biophysicist Dean Kenyon, have cited intriguing evidence in support of this theory such as the presence of digital information, complex circuits and miniature motors in living cells. Recently, mainstream academic publishers, notably Cambridge University Press, have published books and articles that present the scientific case for, and the debate over, intelligent design.

Since intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins, we recommend that students not be required to learn about it. Nevertheless, we think they should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism. Clearly, teachers should also be free to tell their students about alternative new theories like Behe’s design theory, provided these theories are based (as Behe’s is) upon scientific evidence, not scriptural texts.

There are many reasons to adopt this “teach the controversy” approach.

First, constitutional law permits it. In the controlling Edwards v. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is permissible to teach students about both alternative scientific theories of origins and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.

Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative report language accompanying the No Child Left Behind act states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist."

Third, polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Finally, teaching scientific controversies engages student interest and encourages them to do what scientists must do—deliberate about how best to interpret evidence. As Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell are the editors of the recently released book Darwinism, Design and Public Education from Michigan State University Press. Meyer earned his Ph.D. Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Campbell is Professor of Communications at University of Memphis and a leading expert on the argument of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

  • So what do we learn from this article? Well it seems that there are indeed supporters and detractors and that the supporters are linked by the Discovery Institute and other memberships, while the detractors are not necessarily in contact with other, but unified in their oppostion (for whatever their reasons) of this approach to teaching.
Therefore I think that it is possible to write a new article along the lines that I proposed above and rather than classify it as "religion", it would be less controversial as an article if it was classified under "education" and "teaching". I know that people who don't agree with the viewpoint will disagree, but the detractors have to be careful unless they find themselves attacking themselves as being close-minded bigots who believe in one way or no way. Then the left wing suddenly becomes the accused right wing.

The best way to teach is by inclusion, never exclusion and never by censorship! In America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all! MPLX/MH 03:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEE: Talk:Discovery Institute MPLX/MH 06:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see that this has helped at all, especially as, from the quick look I had at the very recent material archived prematurely (and which I've replaced above), some consensus was being reached. Incidentally, to say that people who don't agree will disagree isn't very informative. Moreover we're not in America, nor is anyone talking about censorship — introducing emotive terms like that is designed to make matters worse, not better. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mel on this. I'm wondering exactly what is to be gained by decrying censorship here and what your reason is for doing so? I think this is counter-productive; it is a tactic often used to protect or favor one particular POV. I'm also not convinced of the merit of breaking out the article's info into the strict functional sections of description and then criticism. This seems to go against the style guide and the injunction against pro/con lists. I'm finding MPLX's justifications uncompelling as to exactly why any of this is necessary, and I suspect that you may be arguing from one particular side here. Would you mind fully disclosing your personal POV on TTC/ID/creationism to us here? FeloniousMonk 13:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of axes and squares...

I have no ax to grind on this issue - none at all - totally neutral. My interest was in trying to clear up a mess, but what I discovered was that there are SEVERAL existing and duplicated articles on Wikipedia that are all covering the same thing and none of them are very good! There is even a mirror of this article. This article relates to the newspaper article referenced above and that is referenced on the Discovery Institute site itself. If you read the Discovery Institute web site articles you will soon discover that the entire presentation on Wikipedia had been written as though their entire cause was about one topic: creationism v. Darwinism and that is not what you will find on the DI linked pages.
I was trying to assist in cleaning up a mess, for which an unnamed contributor has hurled bricks at me since he has a superior attitude of being the final judge of all. I don't like that attitude at all. However, before work continues here I suggest that everyone takes a look at the DI site and at the MIRROR of this article on Wikipedia. I discovered it by reaching the conclusion that this article had the wrong title and so I used the DI title to create a new article ... only to discover that it already existed on Wikipedia. There are several interrelated articles on Wikipedia and I suggest that everyone goes to "square one" - NOT a religious term - just a bit of British common sense (since no one likes my references to the USA - I am British by the way.)
Have fun! MPLX/MH 16:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary done. Now the Overview

As agreement, albeit somewhat grudging (but that's probably the best we can hope for) was achieved concerning the summary, I've inserted it into the article (with a little copy-editing, Wikifying, and a mention of Discovery Institute). If anyone objects to any of my tidying, let me know, and I can go back and change it.

Given the success of that operation, could we do the same for the Overview section? Would anyone care to suggest a compromise Overview to be inserted in place of the current version? Then other editors can sugest changes or alternatives, and we'll see if an agreed-upon version can be reached. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following has been removed from my Talk page because it belongs here:


Teach the Controversy page

Thanks for your contribution. Who has the power to unlock a page and how does that happen? Is your proposal just a proposal, or is it Wiki policy? Seems like attacks on a movement should never be in the intro paragraph.

If you don't mind me asking, who decides what version to lock and on what basis? It seems to me a very unjust decision was made on this page, and it disillusioned me with the whole Wiki process. Thanks again. --VorpalBlade 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. However, I tried exactly what you propose, then others came in and insisted that the intro had to say that the movement is a ploy, and then they convinced an admin to lock it. Look at what it is now. I doubt they will agree to what you propose, and they seem to have the power to block any improvement toward a neutral statement.
If it was as simple and obvious as you propose, why would the Admin lock a version that just made massive deletions and turned the intro into an attack? --VorpalBlade 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand why VorpalBlade is so pleased. I had just managed to get things cooled down between most of the parties, with two of the main antagonists agreeing on a summary (VorpalBlade reluctantly), when you barge in, archive the Talk so far (including a great deal of material so recent that I hadn't had a chance to read it), and start your own approach from scratch. That was neither well-mannered nor productive. I only hope that I can salvage the earlier agreement. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/a/Talk%7ETeach_the_Controversy_Archive_2_91e1.html"