Talk:Center for Science and Culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-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. |
|||
 |
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Center for Science and Culture, has edited Wikipedia as 216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) |
|
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Center for Science and Culture, has edited Wikipedia as Truthologist (talk · contribs) |
[edit] Unsourced Information, Unsubstantiated Claims, NPOV
I have removed several unsourced quotes from persons assoicated with the CSC, and materials that violate WP:NPOV, specifically relating to funding of the program.Truthologist 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see the Creative Response Concepts PR campaign on behalf of the Discovery Institute has extended to this article and beyond deletionism to making exaggerated claims: [1]
- "CSC conducts scientific and academic research into the theory of intelligent design." 1) There is no ID "theory". 2) Exactly what specific scientific and academic research program is there? The DI has never point to an actual research program and the Judge in the Dover said there isn't any in his ruling: [2]
- Changing "The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups" to "The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which has received grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups" is clearly a POV whitewash. As detailed at the DI article and in the source here provided the DI's CSC was completely underwritten by Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation: "Discovery Institute, however, with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture." [3] and [4]
- Changing "This group formed the CSC and has continued to operate through it, forming the nucleus of the movement, which it remains to this day, with both Johnson and Meyer serving as CSC officers." to "This group was instrumental in forming the CSC and has continued to operate through it, forming the nucleus of the movement." As the cited Johnson interview [5] says, Meyer, Johnson, Nelson and others formed the CSC. And they remain there today: [6] Claiming ""This group was instrumental" instead of "This group formed" the CSC is weasely, ambiguous, and unsupported.
- "CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, admits most of the Center's money comes from wealthy donors from the Christian right." Was and is supported by the Washington Post article found in the same section: "We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part." --Stephen C. Meyer, Washington Post, 2005 [7]
- So, once again I've had to restore accurate, supported deleted by you, and I've added additional cites just so it's clear. FeloniousMonk 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV Tag added to the Teach the Controversy section. I took a peek at the main article and it appears to have a much more neutral tone. Specifically have a problem with the first sentence especially the unsourced "theory in crisis" and "undermining" in the second. I think this section should resemble the main article in neutral tone and content. Right now it seems like it was written from a one-sided point of view. I'm going to make the edit myself, let me know if there are any problems with it. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- "In crisis" (along with new addition "dying theory") is sourcable to the Forrest paper. IDers have been refering to evolution as a "theory in crisis" since before the movement's founding -- see Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This would seem to be a WP:V issue, not a WP:NPOV one. HrafnTalkStalk 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category
Why is this page in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between Category:Intelligent design and Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably. Might want to take it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Richard001 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that, strictly speaking, Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors should in fact be 'Fellows of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture' (as the CSC has a fellows list[8] independent of the DI's[9]), but for reasons of brevity this is contracted down to its current title. As many in the category (about half I would suspect) are fellows of the DI's CSC, it is not unreasonable to include the CSC as a 'co-parent' article along with the DI's article. While it is possible to reflect this with a more accurate category tree, this would require at least two additional categories: 'Discovery Institute' and 'Center for Science and Culture Fellows', for not much in the way of additional benefit. HrafnTalkStalk 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
