Talk:Wedge strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Creationism
 Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Mistaken Reference

Ref. #13 quotes "The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate ... " and links to Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (Phillip Johnson). I don't see those words in that paper - can't find where he did say that. --BAPhilp 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was said by Johnson in an article in the April 1999 issue of Church and State Magazine, as cited by [[1], [2], [3]. I'll fix the cite. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large deletions by joshuaschroeder

Large deletions should be discussed before effectuated. It is a fundraising letter that was intended for supporters. It can be misconstrued out of context. What I added was a factual statement about what the DI says about the context of the original document and about false allegations made. What the Discovery Institute says about it, and about the allegations made by others, is very relevant and important for balancing this article. There should be consensus before such massive deletions. --VorpalBlade 01:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This wasn't a large deletion, and even so removal of irrelevent or inconsequential material does not need to be discussed beforehand. We can talk about your grievances on the talkpage and I am certainly hopeful that we will come up with a solution that is a good NPOV presentation of the material. Joshuaschroeder 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think it is irrelevant? As noted above, I think it is. If you think I made what they said sound like fact, then we can make changes to make clear that it is their explanation. You can also add what others say about it, like B. Forrest, I think?--VorpalBlade 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it was irrelevant because many of the quotes seemed to be fighting against an argument that wasn't made in the article. I will consider your new additions. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding the heading is a good solution. I left out some of the text you deleted, but adding a little more is appropriate in explaining the strategy.

One of the main problems I have with this is the the Wedge Strategy doc is not the best place to find out what the strategy is. That was a fundraising letter, but the best exposition was Johnson's book with the same name. That book explained it for all readers. The fundraising doc. assumes that the target audience is sympathetic and understands the context, the means, etc.--VorpalBlade 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you here. The assumption of the target audience needs to be mentioned (as we try to in the introduction), but just because the target audience isn't vetted for public consumption doesn't mean that it isn't a good source for finding out what the strategy is. To claim this would be akin to claiming that it would be better to find out about any company or country's policy from publications that they design to be released to the public rather than through internal memoranda. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main point of the strategy as Johnson lays it out is to stop the inappropriate domination of science by the a priori philosophy of naturalism. This doesn't come out in the article. This article is really about the Wedge Strategy document, not really about the strategy. --VorpalBlade 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. The philosophy of naturalism and its association with secularism seems very clear to me. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted reincorporation

Many of the quotes used that go on in length about the magnamity of the Discovery Institute with respect to not wanting to impose ideas are a bit of a stretch from a NPOV sense. We should stick to consistent arguments that are made rather than ones that require detailed explanation. I'm not sure how one can NPOV formulate the claim that the Discovery Institute opposes the imposition of any a priori assumption while only supporting ID projects. Joshuaschroeder 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the above contains absolutely nothing but vague personal opinion. please identify policy justifications for your edit. thank you. Ungtss 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not a personal opinion that the Discovery Institute sponsors only ID scientists. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not personal opinion that princeton sponsors only evolutionary scientists, either. what relevence? reverting until you provide a justification for your gutting. Ungtss 12:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The current article contains about 33 lines that for the most part selectively quote from one DI document. The explanation contains 17 lines that explains the larger context and explains the DI's position with respect to the way that doc. has been interpreted. I don't see how that is unreasonable. I cut down the explanation section somewhat in response to your objection. I think the first 33 lines give way more time than this one document deserves, but I have not deleted any of this section (just edits for accuracy). I don't think you should take out more of the last section before reaching a consensus here, so we do not end up in an edit war.
By the way, I appreciate Joshua's changes to the intro to make the context clearer, and your header for organization is good. I think the article needs a good neutral summary of how Johnson explains the Wedge in his book. --VorpalBlade 14:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for this, Vorpal. We should be explicit though that it is Johnson's take on the matter we are trying to describe and we should also be clear that his agenda as one of the "founding fathers" of the ID movement is apparent. I don't think it is relevant to count lines in the article. NPOV does not mean equal time is necessary. You may feel that there are irrelevant statements -- if so, remove them or rework them. As it stands, Ungtss is simply knee-jerk reverting rather than trying to work here. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, VorpalBlade. Joshuaschroeder 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As usual, the above contains nothing but personal opinion. you are deleting attributed and relevent material without justification. justify your deletion. Ungtss 14:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justified edit

Here is the version that Ungtss likes (version a):

"...It lists examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

"It stated that, far from trying to impose its worldview on science, one of its main aims is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy on the interpretive freedom of scientists. It "rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science, and challenges "scientific materialism--the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone." It articulates a "strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate."[4]"

Here is my version (version b):

"The Wedge strategy is claimed to be an opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and a support of the interpretive freedom of scientists. The goal of the strategy is described as "influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate".

"The defenders of the Discovery Institute point to examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations made with respect to the Wedge strategy, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state."

Now, first of all, the pronoun is not well-determined in version a. What is the "it"? Is it the Discovery Institute? Wedge document: so what? What is it? To say that one of the major aims of either the Discovery Institute or the Wedge strategy is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy is a bit misleading because DI sponsors solely ID researchers. It is important to point out that they oppose what they see as the dominant philosophy. More than this, the bit about the critique of scientific materialism is discussed above obliquely at least, but according to the wider goals of the Wedge strategy, it is only an oblique mention anyway. Johnson may talk more about scientific materialism in his book on the subject -- if so, that should be included in that bit there. But as it stands here, the mention of materialism above should suffice and it seems extremely redundant to reinclude it in the defense of the strategy. Other than that, everything else is included in a more stylized fashion, so Ungtss' objections mystify me once again. Joshuaschroeder 16:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, Vorpalblade? Ungtss 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to read the above carefully, or look at all the changes, but here are some observations: 1. after a quick read, the current article doesn't look too bad to me- joshua seems to have left in a lot in the explanation; 2. he seems to be making an effort to improve the article overall, rather than just deleting whole chunks with no explanation like some others have done. I don't have time at the moment to look more carefully, but I hope to. I think Ungtss makes very good points and I have found him to be very reasonable and constructive on other pages. I don't think he is being knee jerk at all. I definitely agree more with Ungtss' comments, but need more time to look at the current details. --VorpalBlade 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

Most of this is pretty biased, in my opinion. For example, the wedge document that is the basis for the whole thing is referenced on a man's website that is clearly against all that Discovery may be about, and, from what I've seen, largely misunderstanding them. This article does not generously provide counters to suspicion of ID and Discovery. I don't have the time go through it right now, but should someone else come across this, please provide your comments as well. I'll be back for more later.

--Swmeyer 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your vigorous denials of the obvious in your campaign to return all ID-related articles to the Discovery Institute-approved content continues apace.
The Discovery Institutes's Steven C. Meyer has confirmed the Wedge document. Phillip E. Johnson is explicit in his statements about the Wedge strategy.
This is all in the article, and well-cited with supporting links to credible sources. The article is NPOV and factual.
You may want to reconsider your own strategy here though; going to every ID-related article with an ideological ax to grind is not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia. FeloniousMonk 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a clearly POV statement: "First, because of the Discovery Institute’s successful public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household word, more people now also recognize it as the religious concept of creationism." The word 'recognize' is a success term. You can't recognize A as B unless A really is B. If it's not B, you can still perceive it as B, but you can't recognize it as B. That smuggles in an endorsement that intelligent design is the religious concept of creationism, which is just obviously false. Intelligent design is a philosophical argument that its supporters try to pass off as science and its opponents try to pass off as religious creationism. I can't see how the latter could more less immoral or deceptive than the former. Intelligent design arguments are simply classic teleological arguments for the existence of God and are not based on religious premises but are based on scientific observation. Those premises then enter into a philosophical argument that, regardless of whether it's a good argument, is simply not religious creationism but is classic philosophical argumentation. This article is clearly POV until that sort of thing is removed. You can't recognize something as religious creationism when it's demonstrably false that it's religious creationism. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"...but are based on scientific observation" Which scientific observations would those be? do you have a source for this assertion? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation. No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed. The question is whether we should infer that they are designed. It's scientifically observable that the cosmological constants are in the very narrow range that would allow for human life. It's what you conclude from that that's controversial. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed." No, actually the vast majority of the scientific community has rejected that the universe appears designed; the teleological argument or the fine-tuned universe argument:The U.S. National Academy of Sciences says that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" i.e; the teleological argument, are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own:[5] The same majority of the scientific community has rejected rejected intelligent design specifically: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design, 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S. at 120,000 members firmly rejects design: [6] More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes: [7]. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism like the teleological argument: [8] The National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators views design as not science but pseudoscience: [9] Given the above evidence, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that no one in the scientific community questions the evidence that things appear to be designed.
"I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation." Then there's no point in your commenting here, given that I've provided ample sources that almost the entire scientific community has severe reservations over the concept of "design." FeloniousMonk 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that everyone thinks things are designed. I'm saying everyone pretty much agrees that they appear designed. Many scientists, perhaps most, don't think there's any reason to conclude that that are designed. But they certainly think there are things out there that appear designed. Evidence that hardly anyone thinks you can prove design is just changing the subject. I'm saying that everyone believes that they appear designed, not that everyone thinks they are designed. Give me evidence against the claim I made, not the one you'd prefer me to have made. Since I never said anything about ID being science, that's also a subject change. Please deal with what I said, not what you want me to have said.Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Charitably, Parableman's comments have some merit if applied narrowly to biology, where things do at least have the appearance of being designed. Dawkins recognizes this and coined the term "designoid" to refer to those things which have that appearance but are in fact the product of the mindless, foresightless process of evolution.
Having said that, the argument from fine-tuning does not fair nearly as well, as it's based on some very questionable assumptions regarding the independence of the constants and the physical (and even logical) possibility of there being different values. In addition, the weak anthropic principle suffices to refute the argument.
In any case, as Dawkins shows, admitting to an appearance does not entail admitting that things are as they might initially appear. Al 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
All I said is that a piece of evidence is scientifically discoverable that serves as the foundation of the argument. That's true regardless of whether you choose to describe it as the appearance of design. In the cosmological constant case, the piece of observable evidence is the narrow range of constants that would allow rational life. As you say, the argument faces a difficulty when it assumes that certain probabilities apply to what constants there might have been. But that doesn't deny the point that there is a very narrow range of constants that would allow rational life, and that's the observable fact that the argument starts with. This is a philosophical argument that starts with a piece of observable scientific discovery. Whether it is a good argument is up to the philosophical literature to establish. That debate is ongoing. Some of the best peer-reviewed philosophy journals have published work on that issue. There's no question as to whether it counts as legitimate philosophy. Someone in my own Ph.D. program did a dissertation on this subject, and he's gone on to a successful career. It's a legitimate subject of study that is generally considered an open enough question to have continued work done on it. Most philosophers think the argument fails, but that doesn't mean it's a dead research area in philosophy. It certainly isn't. What's clear from that whole body of work, however, is that it's not just scientific creationism, which means that those who call it that are speaking falsely. And that means that it can't be recognized as scientific creationism, because you can't recognize something that isn't true. That, in turn, means that this entry is very much POV. Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goal

Currently the article states in its lead section,

This religious goal, advanced chiefly by means of the wedge strategy, seeks to establish that life was created as the result of intelligent design.

The Wedge Document on the other hand states,

However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

and

The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds.

The ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, is therefore to replace science. It does not state what should replace science, but probably they are thinking of a form of scholasticism. Markus Schmaus 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That simply doesn't follow. What they say is that they don't want scientific materialism as the dominant philosophical assumption. Materialism is a philosophical view. It is not science. Science is a discipline, not a view. You can do science whether you are a materialist or not. Plenty of scientists have not been materialists. Parableman 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Intro?

The first sentence currently reads: '... Discovery Institute, an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

I propose that the introduction as it stands is overly negative, since it introduces the concept of ID being criticized in the very first sentence. A introduction written in a purely flat, factual tone would be '... Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

Yes, criticism does indeed exist regarding the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document in particular, however this is amply covered deeper within the main article, as those who choose to read that far will soon discover. But in the opening sentence, the criticism angle doesn't feel appropriate. Comments welcome... Jgarth 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and wonder about using the term Neo-Creationist. Do any of those who wrote the wedge document, or the wedge document itself refer to themselves as Neo-Creationist or is this merely a pejorative term used by critics? If it is a perjorative term it should be removed as POV.Bagginator 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats a good point -- I don't think any of them do. Its just a pejorative term. Alethos Logos 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing pejorative about the term neo-creationist. Neo implies new or modern or recent, I trust everyone already knows what creationism means. Whether or not people like being recognized or identified as a neo-creationist is irrelevant. Mr Christopher 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I never saw this article (or heard of the subject) before today, but when an article leads off with "...an organization that is criticized for promoting...", the POV jumps right off the page. Why not just say "...an organization that promotes..."? (Haven't read it and don't plan to, not one of my interests) --CliffC 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't because whoever wrote it does not want to claim straight out that the DI "promotes a neo-Creationist agenda", since the institute would probably deny this? In other words, it is an attempt to avoid expressing a negative POV. I must agree that it's a bit clumsy, but it's really bending over backwards not to be negative, as it would be to come straight out and say that the organisation really does have a neo-Creationist agenda (with all the pejorative connotations of pseudoscience, religion masked as science, etc., contained in such an expression). Presumably there is some other way of saying what its agenda is that would not be controversial. Metamagician3000 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I hear you. What about "...an organization that is said to promote..."? That's not quite perfect either, and a bit weasel-wordish, but maybe closer to neutral. --CliffC 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit too weasel-wordish, I think. Why not, "an American think tank that promotes the theory of intelligent design and opposes what it calls "scientific materialism"? That seems to give the picture accurately and in terminology that the DI could not object to. Metamagician3000 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design to promote. They are promoting a movement or set of conjectures, but not a theory. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The words "the theory of" would not be necessary, but I do think we can get unnecessarily narrow about the meaning of such words as "theory". ID may well be bad science or pseudoscience - I'm as convinced as anybody that it is - but that does not mean it is not a theory in the ordinary sense. The word "theory" is an ordinary English word. Detectives, barristers, historians, philosophers, financial investors, etc., etc., all develop theories. A theory is just a body of explanatory conjecture ... which is exactly what intelligent design is; in ordinary English, "theory" does not mean "testable theory" or "well-corroborated theory" or "closely integrated body of hypotheses". In fact, there is a problem with calling evolution a theory - one that Christian fundamentalists exploit - because the word "theory" in ordinary English suggests something conjectural, which very well corroborated scientific theories such as biological evolution really are not by now.
Still, that's all idle musing. What about my wording with the suggested removal, or with some other word instead of "theory" ("idea"? "conjecture"? "notion"?)? Metamagician3000 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
All the more reason to avoid using an ambiguous word like "theory" to describe ID, and to use an unambiguous word like "conjecture" or "movement". --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we've moved on. What about the suggestions below? Metamagician3000 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What if we changed this:

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on intelligent design, and is the hub of the intelligent design movement.

To this:

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, which is considered the hub of the intelligent design movement.

And then called it a day? The criticism and neo-creationist agenda of the DI is already found in the body of the article so it's not like we're removing anything from the article. Mr Christopher 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think it is necessary to use the weasel-ish "is considered". It's not really a contested fact requiring any qualification or citation. How about "is the intellectual hub"? I realise that some people may not like the word "intellectual" but the DI is where all the ideas seem to come from, as opposed to being a geographical or demographic hub, or whatever. :) Metamagician3000 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything "weasly" about using the accurate term "considered". and I would object to describing anythying DI related as "intellectual". There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design so how can they be an "intellectual hub"? Mr Christopher 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia jargon it is considered to be using "weasel words" (hence my jocular term "weasel-ish") to say in passive voice that something "is considered" or "is believed" without saying who considers or believes this. I could explain why, but perhaps it's obvious to you. I wasn't trying to offend you, just making a joke (obviously not a successful one) about that terminology. Please assume that I am on your side in the cause of producing a solid neutral article, am editing in good faith, and am even trying to be friendly rather than otherwise. My point is that if it's just a fact that would not be disputed from any point of view we don't actually have to say "is considered" or finding some other way of attributing it. I do think you are being a little on the ... um ... narrow side not wanting to use the term "intellectual". Their work is indeed a creation of the human intellect. That does not mean it is correct, well-corroborated, well-integrated, or even testable. Sheesh, I am no apologist for this mob but people with my views should be bending over backwards to be fair to them; that's the Wikipedia way. Look, why not just say "which is the hub of the intelligent design movement" and see what happens? Metamagician3000 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"In Wikipedia jargon it is considered to be using "weasel words" (hence my jocular term "weasel-ish") to say in passive voice that something "is considered" or "is believed" without saying who considers or believes this" Thanks for the most excellent reminder, I had forgotten. And I'm all for simply saying "which is the hub of the intelligent design movement". Mr Christopher 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> In fact the DI has been criticized as well as applauded for its creationist agenda. I like Mr Christopher's proposal with Metamagician3000's amendment. Here's another one that, I think, also solves the problems:

The wedge strategy is a creationist action plan authored in 1998 by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement.
  • criticism is removed from the first sentence (as discussed above)
  • the "creationist" connotation is kept but linked with the document instead of the DI
  • social and political is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead
  • weasel word "considered" is removed (as discussed above)
  • duplicate/repetitive information is removed

AvB ÷ talk 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit worried about the word "creationist". I'll make the change that seems to have the most support at the moment, and we can see how it looks. I won't be upset if people then want to play around with it a bit more. Metamagician3000 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see that this will mean cutting out quite a few words as someone has already added the bit about being the hub, blah, blah but left some other material that is really causing the "negativity" problem. Well, here goes - I'll cut out those other words and see how it looks. I'll place them here so they can easily be played with and put back. I ask fellow editors to think about it before simply reverting. We'll have the words here, so we'll have the opportunity to work on them if anyone feels the need to put some of them back. ... Okay, so here are the troublesome words as a resource: "an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on intelligent design, and is". Metamagician3000 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem with the intro

This line;

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.

Should have a cite. After reading through the wedge document and the other linked information here I don't think this statement is accurate. Opposed to materialism and naturalism yes, but those who wrote the wedge document claim that Intelligent Design is a part of evolution. So they would not propose removing evolution from how science is conducted, that doesn't make sense, unless there is a cite for this statement? Perhaps change the word evolution to "darwinian evolution" or something a little more narrow than the very general term evolution.Bagginator 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, ID proponents present ID as a superior alternative to evolution, not as part of evolution.[10] And just so we're clear, those are the very same ID proponents who wrote the Wedge document.
How anyone can read in the Wedge document

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. [11]


and

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [12]


and claim with a straight face it does not support

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.


all while insisting that ID is compatible with evolution is beyond me. Again, as at Talk:Intelligent design, your lack of knowledge of the subject is telling. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, in reading the testimony from Kitzmiller, as well as from the Kansas Board of Ed hearings, it is quite clear that IDists do not support evolution.
As for the suggestion of changing the term to "Darwinian evolution", that is simply absurd -- the other form of evolution would be, what? theistic evolution? Notice that the latter requires an adjective as it is the newer form. Wow, just like neo-creationism versus creationism....there was no need to relable creationism "paleo-creationism", was there? •Jim62sch• 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Lamarckion evolution? Evolution was around prior to Darwin.Bagginator 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, you are reading your POV into the Wedge Document. Could you quote the portion of the Wedge Document that mentions evolution? If there is not citation supporting the claim
'''Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.
then that claim needs to be removed as POV. So please give me a citation, any citation, demonstrating that wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to the removal of evolution from how science is conducted and taught. If you give me a citation then i'll no longer support the removal of the word evolution from that sentence.Bagginator 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That link that FeloniousMonk gives to the Discovery Institute is very instructive in this regard. They specifically preface each use of the word evolution with the word natural, or naturalistic. They make their position quite clear that they do not oppose evolution, only the materliastic or naturalistic version of evolution. Which is why the sentence is incorrect as it is currently written. Unless someone can give a citation that shows otherwise.Bagginator 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even more instructive from the link that FeloniousMonk gives is evidence that supports my position;
This essay will examine the in principle case against the scientific status of intelligent design. It will examine several of the methodological criteria that have been advanced as means of distinguishing the scientific status of naturalistic evolutionary theories from nonnaturalistic theories such as intelligent design, special creation, progressive creation and theistic evolution
Notice here they claim to support what they call nonnaturalistc theories one of which they call theistic evolution. If you do not support changing the term to Dawinism, or Darwiniam evolution, then there should be a sentence added with this very citation that FeloniousMonk gives showing that the supporters of the Wedge Strategy believe themselves to be supporters of nonnaturalistic or nonmaterialistic form of evolution.Bagginator 01:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The most current edit represents what the proponents of the Wedge Strategy believe and I gave FeloniousMonks citation as evidence. Would could also add more citations, if you prefer, of the proponents of the Wedge Strategy talking about evolution and how they support evolution with the exception of materialistic and naturalistic versions. Also, if there are citations that have critics views which are more in line with FeloniousMonk or Jim62sch we might want to think about changing it to something else, but not before we have citations to demonstrate the position.Bagginator 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're once again failing to take into account that all ID proponents reject what they see as "unguided" evolution (IOW, the mainstream scientific view), and those that accept evolution only accept a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution that was "guided" by an intelligent designer. As long as you continue to conflate the two separate, mutually exclusive definitions of evolution, you'll continue to make this same mistake again and again. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it difficult to understand how you can agree with me and yet change my edit. You agree with me that the proponents of the wedge strategy support evolution as in "a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution" so what? The point remains that they support evolution and so the current form of the article is inaccurate and gives too much weight to your view and not to the proponents view, which it is claiming to define.Bagginator 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Note the use of the word "guided". Syntactically speaking, the adjective negates the noun in this case. •Jim62sch• 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle baseless objections and calls for cites

Bagginator has repeatedly objected to the passage "Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal." claiming it was uncited, unsupported and meant the single item "materialistic, naturalistic, evolution," not the three separate items that ID proponents reject. So, now the passage is supported by nine (!) cites. Despite originally being supported by the Wedge document itself and going unchallenged for years here, thanks to Bagginator the passage is now the most well supported sentence in the article. Perhaps overly supported.

Considering our recent experience with Bagginator at Talk:ID repeatedly dismissing all evidence while ceaselessly raising tendentious objections, I think we need to be polite but firm with how much nonsense in the form of pov campaigning the community needs to tolerate here. Arguing just for the sake of arguing when one has no real idea about the subject, dismissing or twisting evidence and campaigning off this page are all unacceptable and fall under the category of tendentious editing, disruption, and need not be tolerated indefinitely. Our patience has been worn thin by his behavior at Talk:ID and on dozens of user talk pages over the last few weeks.

While were on the subject of being knowledgeable, anyone who has read even only smattering of ID writings, not to mention the subject of this article, the Wedge document, would already know that ID proponents reject all three, materialism, naturalism, and evolution. They'd also know that there's no shortage of sources available in which they do this. We now have nine. How many more does Bagginator think we need before accepting the passage is accurate?

So, along with being reasonable and not tendentious, being current and well-read on the topic at hand is something every editor is expected to be if he's going to be participating at the intense level Bagginator has chosen to. FeloniousMonk 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the continued ad hominem let's take a look at your cites and the sentence as you wish it to be.
Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[3][4][5] naturalism,[4][6] and evolution,[7][8][9][10] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal
The first cite given, #7, says, "Darwinian evolution" which supports my initial idea of the change to Darwinian evolution instead of just plain old evolution. Your second cite makes my case again;
It would have been one thing if Johnson had raised doubts about Darwinism and then gestured at some ways of supplementing or reinterpreting evolutionary theory to take the materialist edge off. But Johnson was convinced that Darwinism had become a corrupt ideology that was being enforced by a dogmatic and authoritarian scientific elite, and that the proper course of treatment for Darwinism was not refurbishment or reformation but removal and replacement.
which clearly shows that they want to remove and replace Darwinism, not evolution, with their version of evolution. Here again from the cite #8 put the qualifier "naturalistic" before the word evolution
This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age.
As a matter of fact not a single one of your cites support the notion that the proponents of the wedge strategy support removing evolution from how science is conducted and taught. They do however support that the proponents of the wedge strategy support the removal of Darwinian forms of evolution which they apparantly disagree with. But let's not just criticize your cites, let's look at what the proponents of the wedge strategy themselves have to say. William Dembski wrote here that;
Insofar as intelligent design is a theory of evolution, it is a theory of technological evolution, and technologies evolve by taking advantage of existing technologies.
Other cites can be found at the Discovery Institute which is where the Wedge strategy came from
The "all or nothing" character of Darwin's theory is often glossed over (if not explicitly denied) by many proponents of evolution. Yet, as Wolfson acknowledges, Charles Darwin understood this dimension of his thought all too well. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down,"
Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species.
In effect, Darwin invited a challenge to his own understanding of evolutionary theory. In recent years, that challenge has been taken up by the proponents of Intelligent Design, whose central argument is that the complexity of the cosmos cannot possibly be explained by the blind and purely accidental process Darwin described.
The proponents of the Wedge strategy do not want to remove the teaching of evolution as an explicit goal, but specifically, Darwin's version of evolution and the version of those who come at it from a materialistic or naturalistic perspective.
Or how about here
In contrast to earlier opponents to Darwin, many proponents of intelligent design accept some role for evolution--heresy to some creationists.
Written in Time magazine and reposted by the Discovery Institute. How much clearer can it get that support some role for evolution, just not Darwins version of it?
Or how about this again posted at the Discovery Institute site written by the Salt Lake Tribune;
Now comes a movement known as "intelligent design.
It was launched in the mid-1990s by a group of physicists, chemists, biologists and philosophers to challenge Darwin's view that everything in the natural world came into being by an undirected process of natural selection and random mutations. These scientists accept evolution within species, but believe that because of their highly ordered complexity, some things like human eyes or cells are best explained as a product of an intelligent intent.
I find it difficult to understand how you can accuse me of not being well read when it comes to this controversy and yet you are unaware of the position of the proponents of the Wedge strategy. To repeat in a succinct way, it is not evolution they are opposed to, it is specifically Darwin's version of it, or that of materialists/naturalists version that they are opposed to.Bagginator 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably because you repeatedly insist on arguing for easily disproved factual inaccuracies and operate from assumptions that fly in the face of all evidence, and you have yet to drop an issue when you've been shown to be wrong. Not to mention your proposed "leading proponents" at Talk:ID that turned out to be utterly without merit, something for which there is wide consensus on both sides.
Now you're having a go at dismissing sources of ID proponents in their own words too? By all means, please carry on. The passage is accurate, and as I've said before, there is no shortage of evidence to support it. I have literally dozens more sources when you're done with these. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Baggy, are you sure you don't mean the Sir Charles Lyell version ("The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land"), or the Herbert Spencer version of it ("Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all")? After all, they were among the first to use the word in its current context. Darwin, who put foward a full theory of evolution noted in 1859 (drawing as do all good scientists on the work that preceded him), "At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form". Of course, there's also the comment by Edward V. Neale four years later, that, "The diversity of species has arisen by the evolution of one species out of another". So, are we talking Lyellian evolution, or Spencerian evolution, or Darwinin evolution, or Nealean evolution, or are we really just talking evolution? As I pointed out elsewhere, the need for adjectives like "theistic" or "guided" point to a very different version of evolution, not really in keeping with the scientific definition. •Jim62sch• 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This don't make no sense. Darwin founded evilution, and its all his fault. God created everything, so Darwin is just an athiest. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be about the truth (that what my user =name means by the way, my pastor suggested it). Whats going on here? Alethos Logos 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of the Wedge Strategy In Action

Should the Kansas evolution hearings be included in that section? Mr Christopher 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it, I'm happy to discuss if anyone feels it is not a bi-product of the Wedge Startegy. Mr Christopher 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. •Jim62sch• 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV para

I have removed the following words, but am placing them here as a resource: Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism. The statements when viewed in the light of the Wedge document show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.

Before someone simply reverts them back in, please consider that it is contrary to Wikipedia's goals to express an opinion on whose views have been "validated" in respect of matters of contentious political debate. The para as it stands takes a strong point of view on who is correct in this controversy. There are some other sentences that are borderline and need some cleaning up (I may tamper with some of them in a minute), but this is the clearest example. If we really must have this para, try to rewrite it so it is less POV, or find someone else who has publicly made an assertion along these lines and attribute it to them. This and other such examples are currently marring what could be an excellent article.

And before anyone draws conclusions about my agenda, I am far from being a supporter of the Discovery Institute or its strategies. Quite the contrary - I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins and have some connection with the brights. However, I don't need this article to express my point of view; I just need it to present the facts, which really speak for themselves. Metamagician3000 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes regarding recent changes

[edit] Lead

The Wedge document states:

  • ... in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

This was rendered in the lead as:

  • whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

This was not in keeping with the quoted source, so I changed it to read:

  • whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by the theory of evolution, "... reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed paragraph

FeloniousMonk restored a paragraph deleted by User:Metamagician3000 (who is currently having a wikibreak). I can see why Metamagician found this para POV so I've added the citation needed tag. I'm not sure I support the deletion but I do think that it's mere editorializing if it does not have an acceptable source. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FM suppplied an acceptable source (page 26 of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). I changed it to page 29 which, I think, is a bit stronger in this context. AvB ÷ talk 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban legend?

FeloniousMonk reverted this edit (without giving a rationale). In my opinion, DI are clearly (see quoted web page and the So What document introduced there) not claiming that the document itself is an urban legend. Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like FM's edit (which goes one step further than mine). AvB ÷ talk 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct quotes

I've also fixed several direct quotes that were off. See edit summaries. Please do not revert without reading the actual source(s). AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate material

I've reworked two instances where material was mentioned twice. If I've inadvertently lost anything, please say so or repair. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dogmatically is POV

I am sorry, but it is obvious that including "dogmatically" violates WP:NPOV. Now, don't get me wrong: *I* think it is TRUE that they are dogmatically opposed to materialism etc. but Wikipedia can't assert that. The NPOV policy - which I'm sure I don't have to remind you is absolutely non-negotiable - says, among other things, "none of the views [presented] should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth" and, "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves". In other words, it makes no difference whether the statement is supported by reliable references, we cannot assert that it is true that they are dogmatically opposed to materialism etc. What we can do, if the other editors insist, is say "According to [person, group, organisation] X, Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed materialism...". I, however, think it is better for the sources to speak for themselves - let the readers make up their own minds. Mikker (...) 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources given and the content of the Wedge Document itself support that the DI and the followers of its ID campaign pursue their agenda and hold their "scientific" opinions as a matter doctrine accepted by them as authoritative (the Bible) and not provisionally (as in science); in other words, dogmatically. Exactly how is noting that not neutral again? That they do this needs to be made clear in the article in order to make clear the distinction between how they conduct their business and how the scientific community conducts its. We can either spell it out as I have above or we can just say "dogmatically", but ignoring this fact in the article is not an option. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely - the Wedge document etc. support the claim that ID proponents and the DI hold their opinions dogmatically. But this is a truth I happen to accept from my point of view - it's an interpretation of the texts, it's an opinion. And, importantly, it is an interpretation ID proponents and the DI would dispute (they'd be wrong in my opinion, but they'd dispute it). WP:NPOV says, to repeat, "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves" and then defines "opinions" as, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." As you well know, part of DI's agenda is to further the claim that ID is a 'science' so, obviously, they'd disagree with the categorization of their beliefs as dogmatic. There *is* therefore a dispute here and it is against policy to assert their beliefs are dogmatic as a sheer matter of fact. If we can find a ref for this, we could always make it "a majority of scientists believe..." or "notable evolutionary biologists X, Y and Z believe...". What we can't' do (without violating NPOV) is assert it is a truth that their beliefs are held dogmatically. Mikker (...) 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [13] strikes me as the very definition of dogmaticism. Your reasoning above would be valid where it not that their own words taken from the very subject of this article say the foundation for their notions is a particular doctrine and not provisional, i.e.; dogmatic. I have literally a dozen other sources with statements in their own words that say that their beliefs are rooted Christian doctrine, and can add them if necessary. I fail to see the issue with identifying their beliefs as dogmatic when they themselves admit they are. FeloniousMonk 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that the term dogma is not inherently negative - dogma is merely a descriptive word in some situations. As the Wikipedia article on dogma notes, the term is often only pejorative in a non-religious context. Given that the statement is intimately related to religion - since it refers to Christianity and the replacement of materialism with their beliefs - I think it is appropriate to consider this a religious dogma, which is therefore an acceptable neutral description. --Davril2020 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[Un-indent]No, "dogmatically" is definitely a term of abuse. I'm sorry, Felonious Monk, but I believe you are consistently pushing your particular point of view (which I actually happen to share) around the edges of this article. Using a word like "dogmatically" is drawing an inference, which is exactly what you try to do in your comment above. It is not up to us to draw the inference that they are being dogmatic. Given your own obvious dislike of this group with its "wedge strategy", I suggest you try bending over backwards to edit in a way that is favourable to them. The people who are disagreeing with you here are not creationists or something. I am as hardline an opponent of ID, etc., as you'll find anywhere, but I try to set that aside when editing Wikipedia. Metamagician3000 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should simply be reporting the facts. And the facts are that the very topic of this article, the Wedge document, boldly says ID proposes to replace provisional knowledge (science) with dogma: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [14] Have you even read the Wedge document? It is a manifesto for dogmaticism. By saying "Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal." we are simply reporting the facts. Read the Wedge Document [15] and tell us how its not advocating a particular dogma. Your objection above ignores both the evidence and reasoning already given above. Until which time you address both I have no response to such a non-argument other than to say wow, ever hear of WP:NPA? FeloniousMonk 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice I did not revert your edit, but merely gave my opinion about its merits in the discussion here. Anyway, I'll leave it at that ... Metamagician3000 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is hard for me to see how "theistic convictions" aren't a statement of dogma. JoshuaZ 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why draw the inference? Let the reader draw it, if it's so obvious (as it may well be). I have no brief for ID or the Discovery Institute, and am totally opposed to the agenda that is being described; if this were my personal blog, I would be castigating the irrationalists, as I tend to call them. But I am merely wearing my hat as an editor, and to some extent my administrator hat in trying to help a fellow admin who seems to want to go further than is necessary. Metamagician3000 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree that "dogmatically" is a good descriptor, technically speaking, I think Metamagician has a point. "Dogmatic" is a loaded word, if only because ID proponents themselves often use it pejoratively, to qualify the type of science they do not like. To me the use of the word here conveys a very clear, negative assertion and I think NPOV requires that we use a more neutral qualification if we can. I'm not sure we can though; I came up with "radically" and "diametrically" which are both correct and sourcable, but not as informative as "dogmatically". Ideas anyone? Pro-ID editors may want to weigh in; for all I know they may be perfectly happy with "dogmatically". AvB ÷ talk 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I have explained this poorly. To call something dogmatic in the religious sense means that something is considered to be beyond doubt, or essential. Usually it occurs when if the thing was false the entire theological edifice would fall apart. It's a means of demarcating debate. For these individuals it is dogmatically necessary for them to oppose materialism based on their theological position. It is no more pejorative to state this than it is to say that they dogmatically endorse the story of the resurrection. --Davril2020 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, their claims regarding scientific materialism/evolution are neither scientific or reasoned. They are purely based on the presumption that materialism/evolution is godless (without an intelligent designer be it space alien, time traveler or deity) and therefore bad/evil. No matter what you say to them, or how their claims are proven to be untrue, they continue to dogmatically cling to their unscientific and unreasonable presumptions. The ID pushers have no interest in how things really are or what the evidence actually supports. They have no use for evidence, they already know the truth and the truth is the Word...As soon as they change their dogmatic ways then we should change the description but until then I think dogmatic is a very accuate descriptor for which there is abundant support. Mr Christopher 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[Un-indent]It's no use getting in an edit war about such a small thing, so I'll leave it at this. For most people the word "dogmatically" does not have a theological meaning in such an expression as "arguing dogmatically"; in any such context it means something like "arguing in a way that is irrationally inflexible" or "in a way that fails to listen to reason" or even "in a way that is overbearing and and arrogant". The theological meaning may be the original one, and of course it has some application in this specific context, but the secondary or metaphorical connotations are inescapable. If I'm having an argument with someone and they accuse me of being dogmatic, they don't mean that I am relying on theological considerations: they mean I am being inflexible, unreasonable, etc. If we don't mean this, but merely mean that the DI bases its arguments on theological doctrine, then that is what we should say. I also repeat that a number of us here, including me, are hostile to the Discovery Institute. That is a reason why we should bend over backwards not to use hostile-sounding terminology and to be receptive to suggestions that some of our statements or wording express our POV, however inadvertently or unconsciously. If we are unwilling to change or remove potentially-hostile wording when it is pointed out to us, we should stop and think about whether our attitude to the DI is affecting our judgment. With that, as I said at the start, I'll leave this article for now and look at something else. I'm satisfied with my own small contribution to it. Metamagician3000 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician3000, please stick around and help improve the article, even though other editors might not agree with your idea on the dogmatic part. We've all had ideas shot down a time or two. Mr Christopher 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea; it was Mikker's. I am just supporting it. I only saw the discussion because the article is on my watch list. I did a fairly thorough revision a little while back and was fairly happy with it, and with the amount that stuck. There's nothing more I can do with this particular article right now. (Come to think of it, I suppose it's possible that I made a similar change myself back when I did that layer of revisions, among all the other little things I did, but I don't remember doing so, and that was not in my mind at all if so.) I wasn't meaning to sound passive aggressive, and I wasn't even consciously feeling irritated (but perhaps I was unconsciously, now I think about it and engage in the sort of self-scrutiny that I ask of others, and it may have shown in my wording; after all, I think this is a pretty clear-cut case and am puzzled that there is so much insistence on the word). I really just wanted to say that I am not prepared to edit war over this minor issue — even though I think Mikker is clearly correct and wanted to offer in more detail my reasons for thinking so. Cheers! :) Metamagician3000 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Wow. It's kind of unfortunate that the front cover of the Wedge strategy document shows a wedge being driven... between Man and God. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having spent many hours discussing ID, and debating the wedge strategy with Phillip Johnson, I must say this article does not come close to accurately reflecting what we discussed. This article's discussion of professor Johnson's ideas is decidedly biased, in violation of the NPOV policy, and warrants a complete rewrite by parties who don't have an ax to grind. It sounds painfully like a flame-war, Wikipedia style. 24.62.101.225 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe it, and who are you? I've heard this described as a way to manipulate the public into abandoning science, or something like that. After reading the actual document, it seems more like it's an attack upon the philosophy of materialism than it is upon science itself. I imagine most people in the scientific community, however, believe "materialism" to simply be a code word for "science". --Kgroover 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/d/Talk%7EWedge_strategy_17c9.html"