Talk:Biologic Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 September 10. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

[edit] Origin and Goals

The start of the 'Origin and Goals' feels rather clunky. How does the following sound:

The original Discovery Institute plan laid out in the Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, called for Douglas Axe, the current Biologic Institute Director, senior researcher and spokesman, to head up a research effort in support of intelligent design. However, the Discovery Institute did not get around to executing this part of the Wedge Strategy plan until 2005.

The Biologic Institute was announced in mid-2005, and incorporated in Washington State in October of 2005 as a charitable organization working on research on birth defects and genetic diseases. ...

Axe's qualifications could go into the 'Staff' section, which already has the other staff's qualifications, thus reducing the length of the first sentence (which is rather lengthy). Hrafn42 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. I expect to have a fair number of changes to these articles when I first start them.--Filll 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation problem

Fill: you have the article pointing to a non-existent disambiguation page. Hrafn42 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I screwed up. All those other uses of the term "Biologic Institute" are fallacious and spurious I believe, and the result of badly translated foreign names. They should be instead translated as "Biological Institute". Therefore, I have asked for the disambiguation page to be deleted.--Filll 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"North American Biologic Institute, Miami, FL, U.S.A", a supplier of biological reagents and materials. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have its own wikipedia article. I don't think there's a requirement to explicitly disambiguate articles for non-articles is there (as long as sufficient information is provided to avoid confusion)? Certainly the Discovery Institute isn't disambiguated for the 'Fraud Discovery Institute' (no, it really does exist, even if it's name does sound like it was made up as a joke on the DI). Hrafn42 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking simply in terms of Wikipedia's local disambiguation. The Discovery Institute and its fellows have a history of co-opting names and terms for their own, usually very different, uses. There was the DI purchase and deployment of the "pbsevolution.org" domain to put up their critique of the PBS/Blue Sky "Evolution" series, halted only after the lawyers from WGBH sent them a cease-and-desist notice (that site is now at "reviewevolution.org"). "Explore Evolution", the title of the new DI textbook, was not original with the DI; it happens to be the name of a multi-sited museum exhibit developed by a number of museums and contributing consultants that opened in 2005. "No Free Lunch", the title of a book by William Dembski, attempted to trade on the theorems from Wolpert and Macready, though Wolpert would note in a review that Dembski hadn't actually done enough in his book to be said to actually have made a mathematical argument that could be addressed. Similarly, "Biologic Institute" isn't a novelty with the DI; there do exist other entities using the name. It's true enough that those others have not garnered a Wikipedia page, though. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the museum thing. I wonder if they can do the DI for trademark, or similar IP, infringement. The No Free Lunch thing pretty much blew up in Dembski's face -- "written in jello" -- those three words alone pretty much negate anything that the book's misappropriated credibility might have done for Dembski's reputation. For the Biologic Institute, as long as there's not a prominent organisation of the same name whose good name they were trading upon (in which case, it'd have its own wikipedia article & we'd disambiguate) & we provide sufficient information that it's clear which Biologic Institute we're talking about, I don't think any harm is being done. Hrafn42 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dixon & Lifeworks Foundation

It seems that Dixon is throwing large amounts of money (via Lifeworks Foundation) at the DI's CSC. This seems a bit odd, given that the DI is meant to be funding the BI. Is it possible that the DI is 'laundering' Dixon's money into the BI for some reason? Hrafn42 05:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)