Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 entry from Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 May 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Campaign classification

I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section. Hrafn42 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further about it, with a little bit of work, the current 'Campaigns' section could be split up into:

  • Goals
  • Freedom of speech campaigns
  • Persecution campaigns
  • Petition campaigns
  • Criticism

...with each of the new sections providing fertile ground for expansion. Hrafn42 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans

The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation. Hrafn42 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Completely rewritten, so now moot. Hrafn42 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" a DI ID campaign?

They spend an enormous amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles. Hrafn42 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example: Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried? Hrafn42 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indirect method example

Odd Nature is emphatically in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:

An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the National Academy of Sciences as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" . Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science Discovery Institute, 2006. [citation de-refed to be readable]

I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have an opinion? Hrafn42 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The full paragraph from Alberts is:[1]

For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.

(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)

Reasons why this isn't a good example:

  1. the example is only marginally relevant to "the indirect method" which is described above in the section as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" (i.e. Teach the Controversy);
  2. to call it an "incomplete quote" is misleading -- the quote is not out of context, if framed differently -- a reframing that they're quite open about; and
  3. it is a very obscure example based on a document written by one of the DI's least notable members -- Casey Luskin. As far as I can see, this document has disappeared without leaving any trace, and is referenced nowhere else except through this article and web.archive.org.

HrafnTalkStalk 17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking the logs, I was reminded that one of the reasons I originally deleted this "example" was that it is OR -- we only have the primary source of the 'Teaching Guide' itself and no secondary source saying that it is an "incomplete quote" (or a problematical quote in any other way) or that it is an example of the "indirect method" (which it seems to be only a rather tangential example of). I have therefore tagged it as OR. HrafnTalkStalk 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Explicit justification for this view is contained at WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The disputed paragraph is clearly "interpretation" of the DI document (the primary source), without any citation to a secondary source. HrafnTalkStalk 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A further comment: the phrase "incomplete quotation" would appear to be a redundancy, all quotations are incomplete, as otherwise they would be a verbatim recitation of the entire document (book, article, etc). The incompleteness is only problematical when it results in the quotation being out-of-context, or some other form of misrepresentation. HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that the 'Teaching Guide' neither mentions "teaching the controversy" nor introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory". It does not deal with the "evidence, both for and against, evolution" of the indirect method, but with the rival views of the definition, and philosophy, of science underlying mainstream Science (i.e. Methodological Naturalism) & ID (i.e. 'Theistic Realism'). But why am I writing all this? People are just going to revert, revert, revert, without bothering to read it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DI "Media Complaints Division"?

Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or otherwise)? Hrafn42 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're not talking to yourself. I notice that DI "hides" things just to prevent problems. I've never used the wayback things. Maybe a quick google search?OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Already tried Google -- numerous mentions by the pro-Science side, but none that I can find from the DI. It is possible that the phrase was simply the pro-Sciencers calling a spade a spade, but I have the nagging suspicion that the DI might have used that (or a very similar) title early on. HrafnTalkStalk 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember that, or something close to it. That makes me wonder if the Panda's Thumb continues to refer to the DI named "Evolution News and Views" as the "Media Complaints Division". Kind of like how they do the DI's "Center for Renewal of Science and Culture". But you need to way back machine and I've nver used it. Angry Christian (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't find anything, but then Wayback is generally of most use when you know specifically where to look (and preferably when) as well as what you are looking for. HrafnTalkStalk 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The DI's 'Media Complaints Division' is what people call [2]. Odd nature (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But "people" doesn't include the DI who call it "Evolution News and Views" with their usual misdirection, since they really mean "Anti-evolution News and Views", unless of course their banner is meant to indicate it's about the evolution of the DI. Which is unlikely, as they still appear to be fossilised. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just wondering if the DI had, in a brief lapse of honesty, originally called a spade a spade, and then tried to erase the fact (which they have done from time to time). But it appears that the descriptor is purely a pro-Science invention. HrafnTalkStalk 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable campaigns in the lead

The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.

In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in Free Speech on Evolution appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Stand Up For Science was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the Kansas evolution hearings, and has sunk without a trace. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity runs a very remote second to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Explore Evolution may eventually achieve notability as a textbook, however as a media campaign it has had negligible impact.

I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is not complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. HrafnTalkStalk 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the highlights?

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my personal view:

Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well. HrafnTalkStalk 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom petition

Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a Soviet and Eastern European Studies bachelor and an award-winning sport columnist who has opinions on everything (his own words), such a great source? Northfox (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the the bill is being sponsored by a retired dentist (Alan Hays) and a former English teacher who has been described as the "Tammy Faye Bakker of Tallahassee"[3] (Ronda Storms) and stumped for by a speech-writer turned actor (Ben Stein), I claim WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources. Unlike the claims of this bunch of snake-oil salesmen, Mayo's point actually has some logic to it. HrafnTalkStalk 08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a separate article on 'Academic Freedom' campaign?

The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE here), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most notable DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)? HrafnTalkStalk 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading a bit further, I'm tending toward 'Academic freedom bills' (or similar) as the title, and the following major milestones:

I'll have a go at getting a sandbox version going for people to look at. HrafnTalkStalk 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rough draft is at . [Article is now 'live' -- see below] HrafnTalkStalk 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did a head to head comparison between the DI model statute & one of the 2005 Alabama bills and, apart from some minor punctuation differences, I can't see any difference between them. HrafnTalkStalk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) The 2006 Alabama bill is also virtually identical (only apparent difference is that it divides one section up into two). HrafnTalkStalk 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the masses of input I've received on the topic, I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead & created it as a new article: Academic Freedom bills. HrafnTalkStalk 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable campaigns" in the lead

  • The following campaigns are claimed to be "notable": Free Speech on Evolution, Stand Up For Science, & Explore Evolution. As far as I can tell, all of these campaigns died an ignominious death in obscurity, having never made significant impact. Can anybody provide evidence (not bare assertions) that they were notable beyond the growing list of campaigns currently not mentioned in the lead?
  • Currently missing from the lead are mentions of
    • 'Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics' (which featured in Weikart's From Darwin to Hitler, West's Darwin Day in America, Coral Ridge's Darwin's Deadly Legacy & in Expelled)
    • 'Campaigns claiming discrimination' (a perennial favourite, again featured in Expelled)
    • 'Academic freedom campaign' (which has spawned bills in seven states over the last four years)

I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and, more recently, to allow Critical Analysis of Evolution. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together. HrafnTalkStalk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Stand Up For Science is officially dead, with its website redirecting to the 'Academic Freedom Petition'. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design and creationism

Does Wikipedia agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this?

For example,

In a video interview, Stephen Meyer said,

  • Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. [4]

I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Wikipedia is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.

If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you present a WP:RS for this viewpoint (reliability would entail that i) the claim wasn't self-serving (ii) was made by somebody with some expertise in the matter who (iii) does not have a track record of dishonesty)? As it stands we have a wide range of WP:RSs stating that it is creationism, and none that it isn't -- so per WP:DUE, this is the viewpoint we present. HrafnTalkStalk 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ed, how does your question relate to this article? There doesn't seem to be any assertion that ID is creationism, there's a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" which reports the denials and the majority view that it is creationism. . . dave souza, talk 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the Discovery Institute and its campaigns for Intelligent Design. And there is a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" (quotes included). The section quotes Judge Jones as saying, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory". This is a denial of the DI position. And this denial is implied to be correct in the article, using the phrase, "has been refuted both in court and academia". This is the assertion that ID is creationism that you said wasn't there.